State v. Biango
| Decision Date | 14 June 1909 |
| Citation | 79 N.J.L. 523,80 A. 487 |
| Parties | STATE v. BIANGO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Giano Battista Biango was convicted of murder in the second degree, and from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction (75 N. J. Law, 284, 68 Atl. 125), he brings error. Affirmed.
Alexander Simpson, for plaintiff in error.
Pierre P. Garven, Prosecutor of Pleas, for the State.
This writ brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming a judgment entered on a conviction in the court of oyer and terminer of Hudson county of Giano Battista Biango for murder in the second degree.'
The errors specified for reversal are three, viz.: (1) That the trial judge in the court of oyer and terminer instructed the jury that it could not consider the question whether the defendant was guilty of manslaughter. (2) That the prosecutor, in his summing up to the jury, employed language which was illegal and prejudicial to the defendant. (3) That the trial judge illegally admitted in evidence a written paper as a dying declaration of the person found by the jury to have been killed by the defendant.
Each of these specifications were discussed by Mr. Justice Garrison, in his opinion in the Supreme Court, when the judgment now under review was there pronounced. All that was said in that opinion we approve, and for the reasons therein set forth the judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed.
It is, however, deemed expedient, in view of the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error in this court, to make an additional comment upon the condition of the record in respect to the specification of error, by which the language of the prosecutor on the trial below is sought to be reviewed. By the printed book, it appears that at the close of the summing up of the respective counsel the counsel for the defendant stated to the court that he wished to assign as error certain remarks (reciting them) of the prosecutor. This was all that occurred. There was no judicial action requested, either during the summing up or at its close. The counsel for the defendant did nothing, aside from stating his wish to assign as error the remarks of the prosecutor, as already observed. It therefore appears that there was no direction or ruling by the trial judge requested or made. The Supreme Court, therefore, properly held that there was no judicial action that constituted judicial error, and no data...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Leary
...affirmed 99 N.J.L. 520, 123 A. 296 (E. & A.1924); State v. Biango, 75 N.J.L. 284, 68 A. 125 (Sup.Ct.1907), affirmed 79 N.J.L. 523, 80 A. 487 (E. & A.1909). The proof here is more than adequate to establish that Szabo was in the required state of mind concerning his demise. The statement was......
-
State v. Hauptmann
...U. S. 467, 28 S. Ct. 594, 52 L. Ed. 894. The abstract of counsel's brief shows that no other point was even suggested. In State v. Biango, 79 N. J. Law, 523, 80 A. 487, this court held that improper remarks by prosecutor, in the absence of timely objection and request for action by the cour......
-
State v. Wynn
...justify a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. State v. Biango, 75 N.J.L. 284, 68 A. 125 (Sup.Ct.1907), affirmed 79 N.J.L. 523, 80 A. 487 (E. & A.1909); State v. Mangino, 108 N.J.L. 475, 478, 156 A. 430 (E. & A.1931); State v. Corrado, 113 N.J.L. 53, 59, 172 A. 571 (E. & A.1934......
-
State v. Ferrell
...court to pass upon certain sorts of error as to which no objection was taken, did not embrace such a matter as this. State v. Biango, 79 N.J.L. 523, 80 A. 487 (E. & A.1910). We are governed by R.R. 1:5--1(a), and it is not confined in its terms, as was N.J.S.A. 2:195--16. It provides: 'the ......