State v. Cioffe
| Decision Date | 29 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 4.,4. |
| Parties | STATE v. CIOFFE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Supreme Court.
Alfred F. Duggan and Nicholas A. Cioffe were convicted of robbery. From a judgment affirming the conviction, 128 N.J.L. 342, 26 A.2d 57, defendants bring error.
Judgment affirmed.
John J. Quinn, of Red Bank, Prosecutor of Pleas for County of Monmouth, for the state.
Milton Rosenblum, of Jersey City, for prosecutors of writs.
The judgment under review should be affirmed and for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court subject to the observations here noted:
On the question of double jeopardy we emphasize that the federal offense for which the defendants were indicted, tried and acquitted and the state offense upon which they were indicted, tried and convicted are distinct crimes. The federal indictment was under a statute of the United States which makes it a crime to feloniously take or attempt to take property, money or other thing of value which belongs to or is in the custody of a banking institution organized or operating under the laws of the United States or any insured bank as therein defined and also makes it a crime to perpetrate an assault in committing or attempting to commit such a taking. U.S.Code Title 12, §§ 588a and 588b, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 588a, 588b. The state indictment was under a statute of the State of New Jersey which makes it a crime to forcibly take from another money or goods of any value by violence or putting him in fear. R.S. 2:166-1, N.J.S.A. 2:166-1. The federal statute is directed toward an offense against the banking system and the state statute is directed toward the offense, generally, of robbery.
The prosecuting attorney, in his summing up, did not give the jury to understand that his belief in the guilt of the defendants was based on anything outside of the testimony; and the opinion of the Supreme Court at the bottom of page 354 of 128 N.J.L., page 64 of 26 A.2d, correctly read, does not intimate otherwise.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, PERSKIE, and PORTER, and Judges DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, and THOMPSON-11.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
...In the Matter of January, 295 Mo. 653, 246 S.W. 241. New Hampshire. State v. Whittemore, 50 N.H. 245. New Jersey. State v. Cioffe, 130 N.J.L. 160, 32 A.2d 79. New York. People v. Welch, 141 N.Y. 266, 36 N.E. 328, 24 L.R.A. 117. North Carolina. See State v. Brown, 2 N.C. *100, 101. Oregon. S......
-
State v. Kociolek
...v. Juliano, 103 N.J.L. 663, 138 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); State v. Cioffe, 128 N.J.L. 342, 26 A.2d 57 (Sup.Ct.1942), affirmed 130 N.J.L. 160, 32 A.2d 79 (E. & A.1943). In State v. Rombolo, supra, the judgment of conviction was reversed since only 31 of the 48 jurors constituting a special panel......
-
State v. Buhl
...N.J.Super. 504, 512, 522 A.2d 455 (App.Div.1987); State v. Cioffe, 128 N.J.L. 342, 347-48, 26 A.2d 57 (Sup.Ct.1942), aff'd, 130 N.J.L. 160, 32 A.2d 79 (E. & A.1943). Neither the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy nor our State constitutional counterpart ( N.J. Const. art. I......
-
State v. Ingenito
...A.2d 129 (1973); see Comment, "The Use of Collateral Estoppel Against the Accused," 69 Colum.L.Rev. 515 (1969); cf. State v. Cioffe, 130 N.J.L. 160, 32 A.2d 79 (E. & A. 1943) (double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions by separate sovereigns; therefore, acquittal of a federal charge doe......