Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1895 |
| Citation | 31 A. 979,57 N.J.L. 489 |
| Parties | CLARK v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to court of quarter sessions, Hudson county; Hudspeth, Kenny, and Hoffman, Judges.
Joseph Clark, being convicted of a misdemeanor, brings error. Dismissed.
Argued November term, 1894, before BEASLEY, C. J., and DEPUE and VAN SYCKEL, JJ.
John T. Dunn, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. H. Winfield, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, being indicted and arraigned for the commission of a misdemeanor, pleaded guilty in open court. Some days afterwards he applied to the court to be permitted to withdraw such plea, and to traverse the charge. This motion was refused, and it is now insisted that in so doing the court committed an error in law. We find no basis for this appellate procedure. When an application is made in a criminal case to recall a plea of guilty and to plead de novo, it is a matter addressed to the discretion of the court. This has always been the doctrine prevailing from the earliest times in this state. Any other rule would be replete with mischief. By its force a defendant could plead guilty, and then, after the witnesses on the part of the state had been discharged, could come into court, and claim as a right to take back his confession and guilt, and put the state to its proof. Fortunately such is not the practice. When the defendant in this case asked to plead anew, the application was addressed to the discretion of the court. The action of the court, under such circumstances, is not appealable; consequently this writ must be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Deutsch
...in the exercise of the court's discretion. See State v. Pometti, supra, 12 N.J., at p. 452, 97 A.2d at p. 402; Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 490, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed, 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A. 1895); cf. R.R. 3:7--10(a); Notes, 64 Yale L.J. 590 (1955); 55 Colum.L.Rev. 3......
-
State v. Johnson
...was gradually eroded by statute (State v. Valentina, supra; R.S. 2:195--16) and by case law. Compare, for example, Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A. 1895), with State v. Pometti, 23 N.J.Super. 516, 93 A.2d 409 (App.Div.1952), af......
-
17 Club, Inc., In re, A--186
...of a formal hearing on the petition to reinaugurate the proceedings was essentially a discretionary matter. Cf. Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A.1895); State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951); State v. Po......
-
Hubbell v. State
... ... will be his." Hence the courts require that the ... application to withdraw the plea of guilty should be made ... promptly, at the earliest possible moment, or at least within ... a reasonable time after entry of the plea. 16 C. J. 396. In ... the case of Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A ... 979, the court said: ... "When ... an application is made in a criminal case to recall a plea of ... guilty and to plead de novo, it is a matter ... addressed to the discretion of the court. This has always ... been the doctrine prevailing from the ... ...