State v. Churchill
| Decision Date | 15 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 56.,56. |
| Parties | STATE v. CHURCHILL. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Peter Churchill was convicted of robbery. Judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court (140 A. 404), and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Joseph W. Henry, of Jersey City (Maurice J. Cronin, of Jersey City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
J. Vincent Barnitt, Prosecutor of Pleas, of Paterson, for defendant in error.
TRENCHARD, J. Four defendants were indicted by the grand jury of Passaic county for robbery. Three of them pleaded non vult; one, Peter Churchill, the plaintiff in error, went to trial and was convicted. The judgment entered upon that conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court (140 A. 404), and we think quite rightly.
The Supreme Court properly held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and that there was no error in the charge of the court.
We should be inclined to affirm without more, were it not for the fact that there is an instruction assigned as error, and strenuously argued, which was not specifically noticed by the Supreme Court in the opinion.
The situatio at the trial was this: The state's evidence tended to show, among other things, that the robbery was a "holdup" of a saloon in Paterson by a gang of armed bandits, in a big open Packard car driven by the defendant, Churchill. He took them aboard, drove past the saloon "a block or two," turned around, and stopped in front of it while his companions, with pistols in their hands, entered and robbed the people in the saloon. He waited there at the wheel, with the motor running, until his companions ran out, and then dashed off with them at top speed, until they were supposedly in a safe place, when he stopped, and they left the car, after having arranged with defendant, Churchill, for a division of the plunder. Churchill was afterwards apprehended in Philadelphia. To meet that and other incriminating evidence, he testified, in effect, that he knew nothing of the plan to rob the place, and that, after the "holdup," he was forced to drive the car away by one of the bandits, who placed a pistol to his back.
In this posture of the evidence, the trial judge, after telling the jury that "in misdemeanors, all who aid, abet, or participate are principals, and are equally guilty," then gave the instruction complained of, and it was this:
"If one would escape the penalty, he must cease to act in complicity with those who seek to defy the laws of the land as soon as he has knowledge of the criminal character of their actions."
That instruction was sound in law (Engeman v. State, 54 N. J. Law, 247, 23 A. 676), and was pertinent to the case by reason of the testimony of the defendant that he had no knowledge of the criminal character of the plan of his associates until after the "holdup...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Toscano
...coerced act to report the matter to the police or to avoid participation in the conspiracy altogether. Relying on State v. Churchill, 105 N.J.L. 123, 143 A. 330 (E. & A.1928) and State v. Palmieri, 93 N.J.L. 195, 107 A. 407 (E. & A.1919), it also concluded that defendant failed to satisfy t......
-
State v. Cooper
...State v. Carlino, 98 N.J.L. 48, 118 A. 784 (Sup.Ct.1922), affirmed 99 N.J.L. 292, 122 A. 830 (E. & A.1923); State v. Churchill, 105 N.J.L. 123, 143 A. 330 (E. & A.1928); State v. Dolbow, 117 N.J.L. 560, 189 A. 915, 109 A.L.R. 1488 (E. & The appellants concede all this but say such moderniza......
-
State v. Sullivan
...of the entire charge we perceive no cause for complaint about the court's discussion of aiding and abetting. See State v. Churchill, 105 N.J.L. 123, 143 A. 330 (E. & A. 1928); State v. Giberson, 99 N.J.L. 85, 122 A. 724 (E. & A. 1923); State v. Marshall, 97 N.J.L. 10, 116 A. 691 (Sup.Ct.192......
-
State v. Woodworth
...affirmed 99 N.J.L. 292, 122 A. 830; State v. DeBellis, 136 A. 603, 5 N.J.Misc. 375, affirmed 104 N.J.L. 187, 138 A. 923; State v. Churchill, 105 N.J.L. 123, 143 A. 330; State v. Dolbow, 117 N.J.L. 560, 189 A. 915, 109 A.L.R. 1488; 2 Hawk.P.C. chap. 29, sec. 1; 4 Blackstone's Com. 34; Reg. v......