State v. Anderson
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
| Writing for the Court | McGANN |
| Citation | 120 N.J.Super. 345,293 A.2d 752 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1972 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Richard ANDERSON et al., Defendants. |
Page 345
v.
Richard ANDERSON et al., Defendants.
Law Division.
Page 346
[293 A.2d 753] G. Michael Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).
Arnold Mellk, Newark, for defendants (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
McGANN, J.S.C.
This matter arises as a result of a motion to dismiss indictment SGJ 7--72--23 charging defendants with assault and battery on a state correction officer in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:90--4 at a state institution known as the Yardville Reformatory. Defendants were inmates there.
By petition, the Attorney General sought, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:73A--1 et seq., an order empaneling a state grand jury. An order was duly allowed, dated March 31, 1971, by Judge Kingfield, A.J.S.C., based on the reasons set forth in said petition.
The petition was rather broad in scope, but among other things, included alleged violations of the criminal laws of New Jersey and violations 'which involves inter county activity * * *.' The indictment in question resulted from matters involving state penal institutions and apparently grew out of an investigation covering disorder and criminal activities in more than one institution.
The order by Judge Kingfield indicated it was allowed for 'good cause having been shown' and pursuant to the authorized statutes, N.J.S.A. 2A:73A--1 through 2A:73A--9.
Page 347
It is claimed by the movants that the indictments should be dismissed because they are not in keeping with the purposes set out in the statutes, Supra, and are, therefore, Ultra vires.
At the outset, I think it should be pointed out that the duly designated assignment judge found there was a proper basis for allowing an order empaneling the grand jury. This being so, this court must acknowledge that there is a presumption of validity and, moreover, a substantial legal and factual basis for allowance of the order of March 31, 1971. For this court to do otherwise would open the return of any indictment by a state grand jury to an easy, inane attack. Furthermore, it would place upon the assignment judge the duty of monitoring the activity of the grand jury.
It is further contended that the order does not meet the prescription of N.J.S.A. 2A:73A--2, to wit:
In making his determination as to the need for impaneling a State grand jury, the judge shall require among other things, A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Paulsen, Nos. 61487
...a grand jury is presumed to be legally constituted. Cole v. State, 68 Ga.App. 179, 180, 22 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1942); State v. Anderson, 120 N.J.Super. 345, 347, 293 A.2d 752, 753 (Law Div.1972), Aff'd, 132 N.J.Super. 231, 233, 333 A.2d 291, 292 (App.Div.1975) (per curiam). The burden was on d......
-
State v. Palendrano
...imprisonments, Page 344 affrays, riots, routs, unlawful assemblies (whatever they may be), nuisances, cheats and deceits) his conduct [293 A.2d 752] would have been indictable at common law (i.e. pre-1776), he is a criminal. One can scarcely conceive of anything more vague or indefinite. To......
-
People v. Hower, No. 79CA0473
...of criminal investigations of "practices and problems extending beyond the boundaries of a (single) county." State v. Anderson, 120 N.J.Super. 345, 293 A.2d 752 at 754 (Law Div. 1972), aff'd, 132 N.J.Super. 231, 333 A.2d 291 (App. Div. 1975), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 143, 343 A.2d 431 In suc......
-
State v. Anderson
...Page 233 Defendant's first point concerning the jurisdiction of the state grand jury was decided in a well-reasoned opinion reported at 120 N.J.Super. 345, 293 A.2d 752 (Law Div.1972). We are in substantial agreement with that opinion and affirm its determination on the jurisdictional issue......
-
State v. Paulsen, Nos. 61487
...a grand jury is presumed to be legally constituted. Cole v. State, 68 Ga.App. 179, 180, 22 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1942); State v. Anderson, 120 N.J.Super. 345, 347, 293 A.2d 752, 753 (Law Div.1972), Aff'd, 132 N.J.Super. 231, 233, 333 A.2d 291, 292 (App.Div.1975) (per curiam). The burden was on d......
-
State v. Palendrano
...imprisonments, Page 344 affrays, riots, routs, unlawful assemblies (whatever they may be), nuisances, cheats and deceits) his conduct [293 A.2d 752] would have been indictable at common law (i.e. pre-1776), he is a criminal. One can scarcely conceive of anything more vague or indefinite. To......
-
People v. Hower, No. 79CA0473
...of criminal investigations of "practices and problems extending beyond the boundaries of a (single) county." State v. Anderson, 120 N.J.Super. 345, 293 A.2d 752 at 754 (Law Div. 1972), aff'd, 132 N.J.Super. 231, 333 A.2d 291 (App. Div. 1975), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 143, 343 A.2d 431 In suc......
-
State v. Anderson
...Page 233 Defendant's first point concerning the jurisdiction of the state grand jury was decided in a well-reasoned opinion reported at 120 N.J.Super. 345, 293 A.2d 752 (Law Div.1972). We are in substantial agreement with that opinion and affirm its determination on the jurisdictional issue......