State v. Buffano., A-590.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. A-590.,A-590. |
| Citation | 68 A.2d 765 |
| Parties | STATE v. BUFFANO. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Louis Buffano was convicted in the Hudson County Court of a notorious act of public indecency by exposing his private parts to a named individual and he appeals.
The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Colie, J.A.D., reversed the conviction holding that it was not supported where there was no evidence that any one saw the alleged act of exposure.
Before Judges McGEEHAN, COLIE and EASTWOOD.
Stephen Mongiello, Hoboken, argued the cause for appellant.
William P. Gannon, Jersey City, argued the cause for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
COLIE, J.A.D.
Louis Buffano was indicted by the Grand Jury of Hudson County. The indictment charged that he ‘did commit a notorious act of public indecency by exposing his private parts to one X, contrary to the provisions of R.S. 2:140-1 (N.J.S.A.)’. The indictment actually states the name of the individual, a minor female, to whom the exposure is alleged to have been made, but for obvious reasons we do not name her.
It is unnecessary to recite the details of the act or acts of the defendant which led to his indictment, trial and conviction, except to say that the incident occurred in a theatre where X was sitting with the defendant on her right, a brother, her mother and another brother in that order to her left. On the State's case, the mother was asked whether she saw the defendant expose himself and answered in the negative. X, when asked to detail what happened, did not testify to any exposure.
The appellant argues that the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 2:7-7 and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Our disposition of the first ground makes unnecessary a discussion of the second. The statute under which the indictment is laid provides that ‘Any person who shall be guilty of * * * any notorious act of public indecency, * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.’ The indictment charges the defendant with the commission of a particular act, to wit, exposure of his private parts to X. The question is whether the proofs support the charge laid, and in this respect we have no doubt but that they do not do so. In Bishop's New Criminal Law, 8th Edition, Chapter LXX, that author says of exposure of the person that ‘contrary to the rule for most nuisances, * * * this one, being momentary and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vronko
...715, 101 N.W. 637 (1904); Van Houten v. State, 46 N.J.L. 16 (1884); State v. Roper, 18 N.C. 208 (1835). But see State v. Buffano, 5 N.J.Super. 255, 257, 68 A.2d 765 (1949). Instead, it was necessary merely that the exposure occur in a public place. 3 Wharton's Criminal Law (15th ed.), § 308......
-
State v. Dorsey
...State v. Cohen, 108 N.J.L. 216, 167 A. 437 (Sup.Ct.1931), affd 110 N.J.L. 17, 163 A. 665 (E. & A. 1933); State v. Buffano, 5 N.J.Super. 255, 68 A.2d 765 (App.Div.1949). Acts likely to debauch or impair the morals of a minor were charged as private lewdness in State v. Spriggs, 106 N.J.L. 4,......
-
State v. Wyant
...there be witnesses to bring it to the attention of a court.' 1 Bishop, Criminal Law (9th Ed.) § 1126(2), p. 829; see State v. Buffano, 5 N.J.Super. 255, 257, 68 A.2d 765. '(B)ecause of the nature of the case and the fact that such charges are so easily made and so difficult to defend agains......
-
State v. Bunch, 206--40435--I
... ... 1 See State v. Jaime, 4 Conn.Cir. 530, 236 A.2d 474 (1967); State v. Buffano, 5 N.J.Super. 255, 68 A.2d 765 ... (1949) and Hearn v. District of Columbia, 178 A.2d 434, 94 A.L.R.2d 1348 (D.C.Mun.App., [467 P.2d 214] 1962) ... ...