State v. Baker
Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
Docket Number | No. A--531,A--531 |
Citation | 90 N.J.Super. 38,216 A.2d 26 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Francis G. BAKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
A. Leon Kohlreiter, Paterson, assigned counsel, for appellant (Heyman Zimel, Paterson, on the brief).
Archibald Kreiger, Asst. Pros., for respondent (John G. Thevos, Pros., attorney).
Before Judges GOLDMANN, FOLEY and COLLESTER.
Defendant was charged with breaking and entering (N.J.S. 2A:94--1, N.J.S.A.) and larceny (N.J.S. 2A:119--2, N.J.S.A.), tried to a jury, found guilty and sentenced. He appeals. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant claims error in the charge on the subject of his prior convictions. The court instructed the jury:
Defendant now claims that the last sentence of this charge was prejudicial. Since trial counsel voiced no objection to the charge as given, defendant's present contention is projected as plain error.
The last sentence appears to have been taken from our opinion in State v. McNair, 59 N.J.Super. 453, 458--459, 158 A.2d 7 (1960). We consider that part of the opinion as an inaccurate statement of applicable law. It should not have been included in the charge; instead, the trial judge could have told the jury that 'Having done so, you may or may not conclude that his credibility was affected thereby.'
However, we conclude that there was no plain error, in light of the entire case. Defendant was caught red-handed by a police officer while coming out of a luncheonette, to which he had gained access by breaking through the glass in the front door and then rifling the cash register of $20.35 in coins. He later confessed to the crime but refused to give a written statement. Defendant was clearly guilty, and if the language of the criticized sentence was ill chosen, we nonetheless do not perceive plain error which affected defendant's substantial rights.
Defendant next claims error in the charge with reference to his alleged oral confession because the jury should first have been instructed to decide whether he had, in fact, made such a confession. The judge clearly charged the jury on the issue of the voluntariness of the oral confession which had been testified to by the detectives. State v. Von Atzinger, 81 N.J.Super. 509, 514--515, 196 A.2d 241 (App.Div.1963); State v. Wolf, 44 N.J. 176, 193--194, 207 A.2d 670 (1965). Defendant did not object to any testimony regarding the oral confession. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lair
...Mich.App. 219, 160 N.W.2d 790 (1968). Cf. State v. McNair, 59 N.J.Super. 453, 458--459, 158 A.2d 7 (App.Div.1960); State v. Baker, 90 N.J.Super. 38, 216 A.2d 26 (App.Div.1966). We hold that this failure to instruct the jury, presented here as plain error, did not warrant a This brings us to......
-
Fox v. Passaic General Hospital
... ... and surgically removed. The trial court's finding of fact to the contrary was not supported by sufficient credible evidence. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162, 199 A.2d 809 (1964) ... The lapse between the time the drain was first missed on October 30, 1970 and ... ...
-
State v. Kintner
...for the trial court to make the specific statement noted above, omission of which is complained of by defendant. State v. Baker, 90 N.J.Super. 38, 40, 216 A.2d 26 (App.Div.1966). However, in the light of the charge on this subject as a whole, we find no prejudice to defendant warranting a A......
-
State v. Christie
...then be told: 'Having done so, you may or may not conclude that his credibility was affected thereby.' See State v. Baker, 90 N.J.Super. 38, 40, 216 A.2d 26 (App.Div.1966), correcting an inaccurate statement of the law in the earlier case of State v. McNair, 59 N.J.Super. 453, 458--459, 158......