Sherlock v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1897 |
| Citation | 60 N.J.L. 31,37 A. 435 |
| Parties | SHERLOCK v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to court of quarter sessions, Hudson county; Hedspeth, Judge.
James Sherlock was convicted of a crime, and brings error. Reversed.
Argued November term, 1896, before BEASLEY, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, LIPPINCOTT, and GARRISON, JJ.
W. D. Daly, for plaintiff in error.
C. H. Winfield, for the State.
This writ of error brings up the record of a judgment in a criminal cause. A general exception to the charge of the court to the jury appears in a bill of exception (1 Gen. St. p. 1151, § 157), and the charge Itself is certified by the court below under 1 Gen. St. p. 1154, § 170.
By force of this procedure, this court must reverse the judgment below for any affirmative error in the charge that may have prejudiced the defendant to maintaining his defense upon the merits. 1 Gen. St. p. 1138, § 89. The official history of the trial shows that the defendant sought to break the state's case by testimony tending to show that he was elsewhere at the time of the commission of the offense charged in the indictment,— to common expression, "he set up an alibi." Upon this branch of the case, the judicial instruction to the Jury took this form:
In another part of the charge it is said: "He [defendant] must prove the fact of the alibi set up by him by a preponderance of evidence." These instructions are erroneous, and rest upon a misconception of the nature and effect of the line of evidence offered. In a case where the presence of the defendant at the commission of the crime is essential to his conviction, the state must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Testimony tending to break the force of the state's prima fade case, by testimony that the defendant was "alibi," is not the offer of an affirmative issue advanced by the defense; it is merely showing a state of facts inconsistent with an essential element of the indictment. The jury may, notwithstanding such testimony, believe that the defendant was present as charged, or they may believe that he was absent, in which event he is said to have "proved his alibi." A third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garvin
...1303, 1304 (1939); 29 A.L.R. 1127, 1139 (1924); 124 A.L.R. 471, 474 (1940). That error crept into the charge in Sherlock v. State, 30 N.J.L. 31, 37 A. 435 (Sup.Ct.1897); State v. MacQueen, 69 N.J.L. 522, 531, 55 A. 1006 (Sup.Ct.1903); State v. Parks, 96 N.J.L. 360, 115 A. 305 (Sup.Ct.1921),......
-
State v. Giordano
...cannot say that the state has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the accused would be entitled to an acquittal. Sherlock v. State, 60 N. J.L. 31, 37 A. 435; State v. Parks, 96 N.J.L. 360, 115 A. 305; State v. Headley, 113 N.J.L. 335, 174 A. 572; State v. Kaplan, 115 N.J.L. 374, 180......
-
State v. Wines, A--664
...as a prefatory premise. A glance at our decisions will display the manifest error in law of the court's instruction. Sherlock v. State, 60 N.J.L. 31, 37 A. 435 (Sup.Ct.1897); State v. MacQueen, 69 N.J.L. 522, 55 A. 1006 (Sup.Ct.1903); State of New Jersey v. Tapack, 78 N.J.L. 208, 72 A. 962 ......
-
State v. Guarino
...of guilt is raised, even by inconclusive evidence of an alibi, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Sherlock v. State, 31 Vroom [60 N. J. Law] 31 . The same principle applies where a defendant introduces evidence tending to establish his good character, in order to show t......