State v. Bacheller

Decision Date14 October 1916
Citation98 A. 829
PartiesSTATE v. BACHELLER
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Camden County.

George T. Bacheller was convicted of forgery, and brings error. Reversed.

Argued June term, 1916, before GARRISON, PARKER, and BERGEN, JJ.

Wilson & Carr, of Camden, and Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, for plaintiff in error. William J. Kraft, of Camden, for the State.

BERGEN, J. The defendant was convicted in the Camden county court of quarter sessions of the crime of forgery. The record has been brought here by a writ of error, and also contains the proceedings had at the trial as permitted by sections 136 and 137 of the criminal procedure statute, and the principal ground urged for reversal is the refusal of the trial court to direct an acquittal at the close of the case for the state.

If this action resulted in a manifest wrong or injury to the defendant, he is entitled to a reversal. State v. Jaggers, 71 N. J. Law, 281, 58 Atl. 1014, 108 Am. St. Rep. 746; State v. Lieberman, 80 N. J. Law, 506, 79 Atl. 331. It is urged by the state that even if this judicial action was erroneous, the defendant waived his benefit by proceeding with his defense, during which, it is claimed, the defendant by his testimony supplied the deficiencies, if any, in the state's case.

In the case of Burnett v. State, 62 N. J. Law, 510, 41 Atl. 719, Mr. Justice Collins, speaking for the Supreme Court, expressed his opinion, not necessary to the decision of the case, for it was disposed of on another ground, that although the defendant was entitled to a ruling at the close of the state's case, he waived an exception to its denial by proceeding with his defense, but our Court of Errors and Appeals did not consider such a course a waiver in State v. Jaggers, supra, where defendant's exception to a refusal to direct an acquittal at the close of the case for the state was considered and determined, although after such refusal the defendant proceeded with his defense, and the same course was followed in this court in State v. Lieberman, supra.

In the Jaggers Case Chancellor Magie, speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals after declaring that the court was required, under section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act, to consider whether the plaintiff in error has suffered manifest wrong or injury in the denial of any matter by the trial court which was a matter of discretion, said:

"The provision for review of a denial of a motion to discharge or to direct a verdict of not guilty, winch is addressed to the discretion of the court, brings into review only the question whether, upon the evidence as it stood when the motion was made, there was a case for the jury."

It cannot be assumed that so learned a jurist overlooked the fact that after the denial of the motion the defendant proceeded with his case, or that, if this latter circumstance amounted to a waiver of the defendant's rights, it would not have been so adjudged, and the review would not have been limited to the question whether, upon the evidence as it stood when the motion was made, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of his exception. In the Lieberman Case, Chief Justice Gummere, speaking for this court, said:

"Under the provision of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act a court of review is required to consider, among other things, whether the defendant has suffered manifest wrong or injury in the denial of any matter by the trial court which was a matter of discretion. This provision applies to a refusal to direct a verdict at the close of the state's case, but it brings into review only the question whether upon the evidence as it stood when the motion was made there was a case for the jury."

In neither of these cases was the testimony of the defendant considered, and from them it appears that in cases governed by the sections of our Criminal Procedure Act above mentioned, a defendant is entitled to the benefit of a review of an erroneous refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state's case, and that an exception to such ruling is not waived by the defendant because he proceeds with his defense. This is a just rule, for the policy of the law is against compelling a person charged with a crime to prove his innocence until the state has made a case from which guilt may be inferred. There is no such thing as a nonsuit in a criminal case, and at the close of the state's case there must be evidence from which an inference of guilt may be drawn, or the defendant is entitled to an acquittal as a matter of law, and that legal right will not be presumed to be waived because he proceeds with his defense.

The practice that obtains in civil trials of considering defendant's testimony upon review of the denial of his motion to nonsuit affords no criterion as to criminal trials, for its history and theory are entirely different. In civil trials the practice of compulsory nonsuits, not being derived from the common law, was sui generis in this state, and in the early days the rule adopted was that such a motion, although made at the close of the plaintiff's case, would not be decided until the defendant had rested his case. This practice became so unpopular with the bar that it led to the compromise rule as we now have it, by which the motion is decided before the defendant opens his case, but on a review of its denial the defendant's testimony will be considered if it supports the ruling against him. Perth Amboy Manufacturing Co. v. Condit, 21 N. J. Law, 659; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 28, 2004
    ...398 Mich. 250, 256, 247 N.W.2d 547 (1976); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 128, 624 A.2d 53 (1993); State v. Bacheller, 89 N.J.L. 433, 434-37, 98 A. 829 (N.J.Super.1916). 24. We are mindful, of course, of the analogies that can be drawn against the waiver rule from the exclusionary rule,......
  • Newell v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1976
    ...of evidence by the defense which, as said by the majority, 'fleshed out and fattened' the State's case. See State v. Bacheller, 89 N.J.L. 433, 98 A. 829 (1916); Cephus v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 324 F.2d 893 (1963); 2 Wright's Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal, § 463, p. ......
  • State v. Rocker, 4898
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1970
    ... ... State v. Bacheller, 89 N.J.L. 433, 436, 98 A. 829, ... Page 694 ... 830 (1916). I reject the use of the civil 'waiver' doctrine in criminal cases because its use in criminal cases violates the basic principle of our system of law that the criminal apparatus of the government should not be permitted to move ... ...
  • State v. Rutan
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 4, 1984
    ...by which he was required to give it. This comes perilously near compelling the accused to convict himself ...." State v. Bacheller, 89 N.J.L. 433, 436, 98 A. 829 (1916). See also State v. Simpson, 64 Hawaii 363, 370-72, 641 P.2d 320 (1982); Commonwealth v. Cote, 15 Mass.App. 229, 240-41, 44......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT