State v. Albertalli
| Decision Date | 05 March 1915 |
| Parties | STATE v. ALBERTALLI. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Hudson County.
Henry Albertalli was convicted of assault and battery with an automobile on the person of another, and he brings error. Judgment reversed.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of an atrocious assault and battery with an automobile upon the person of George C. Poeschel, committed April 27, 1913, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening. Prior to his indictment, the defendant was convicted in the recorder's court of North Bergen of driving his automobile upon the boulevard on the evening of April 27, 1913, between the hours of 7 and 8 p. m., at an unreasonable rate of speed, without regard to traffic and the use of highways, thereby endangering the life, limbs, and property of George Poeschel, in violation of subdivision 4 of section 23 of the Motor Vehicle Act (3 Comp. St 1910, p. 3436).
The plaintiff! in error entered a plea of autrefois convict, and the court sustained the prosecutor's demurrer. The trial then proceeded, and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty with a recommendation for mercy.
Argued November Term, 1914, before GUMMERE, C. J., and GARRISON and MINTURN, JJ.
John Warren, of Jersey City, for plaintiff in error.
Robert S. Hudspeth, of Jersey City, for the State.
The judgment in this case must be reversed for the following misdirection to the jury:
"To put it in another way: If you find that the defendant was so running his car at the time of the accident that a reasonably prudent man would not run his car in the same way, and that therefore this accident occurred, then you have a right to infer that he intended to commit this assault and battery which actually was committed upon this complaining witness."
This permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged if the accident happened from the negligent running of his car.
Again, after reciting the circumstances testified to by the defendant, the charge was:
"You must say whether that was the action of a prudent man under the circumstances described if you believe those circumstances existed."
It is true that earlier in the charge the correct rule as to implied malice and the necessity of a criminal intent were laid down with admirable clearness, but, as was said in the case of State v. Clayton, 83 N. J. Law, 673, 85 Atl. 173, how was the jury to know which of these conflicting statements was the law?
As the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Currie
...a crime involving a death and a mere violation of a traffic statute.' 23 N.J., at p. 169, 128 A.2d at p. 491. See State v. Albertalli, 112 A. 724, 725 (N.J.Sup.Ct.1915); State v. Williams, 21 N.J.Misc. 329, 330, 34 A.2d 141; (Recorder's Ct. 1943); cf. State v. Francis, 67 N.J.Super. 377, 38......
-
State v. Van Landuyt
...fact situation." 137 N.J.Super. at 54, 347 A.2d at 797. See also, State v. Shoopman, 11 N.J. 333, 94 A.2d 493 (1953); State v. Albertalli, 112 A. 724 (N.J.Sup.Ct.1915). The recent United States Supreme Court decision Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), does no......
-
State v. Wynn
...to determine what part of a contradictory charge is correct. State v. Sahazian, 98 N.J.L. 430, 119 A. 780 (Sup.Ct.1923); State v. Albertalli, 112 A. 724 (Sup.Ct.1915). Where the life of an accused is at stake, it is too risky to determine what the instructions in this case could mean to the......
-
State v. Shoopman
...necessarily the result of such prohibited acts, may likewise be punished as a separate and distinct offense.' See also State v. Albertalli, 112 A. 724 N.J. (Sup.Ct.1915); People v. Wilson, 193 Cal. 512, 226 P. 5 (Sup.Ct.1924); Commonwealth v. Maguire, 313 Mass. 669, 48 N.E.2d 665 (Sup.Jud.C......