State v. Clayton

Decision Date18 November 1912
Citation85 A. 173,83 N.J.L. 673
PartiesSTATE v. CLAYTON.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Error to Court of Oyer and Terminer, Monmouth County.

Charles D. Clayton was convicted of murder in the first degree, and brings error. Reversed, and venire de novo ordered.

R. Ten Broeck Stout, of Lakewood, for plaintiff in error. John S. Applegate, Jr., of Red Bank, for the State.

GARRISON, J. The plaintiff in error was tried for the shooting and killing of a police officer who was in the act of placing a hand upon his shoulder either to arrest him or to detain him, or to expostulate with him. The shot may have been fired on a sudden impulse or after premeditation and with a deliberate intent to kill. The jury found the latter.

Upon the question of murder in the first degree, the following instruction to the jury is brought before us upon error assigned on a bill of exceptions: "If the shooting was done with deliberation and premeditation, if you find that beyond a reasonable doubt as I told you, then the crime is murder in the first degree. Now, as to the premeditation and deliberation, there need be no particular interval of time, as I told you. The human mind acts so quickly that if you find that this man shot, and had the interval of time, however short, to form that intention, it is enough if he formed the intention and carried it out. That is what is meant by deliberation in the law."

Of the error of this instruction there can be no doubt. In so far as it instructed the jury that the formation and execution of an intention to kill was what was meant by deliberation in the law it was directly opposed to what we decided in State v. Deliso, 75 N. J. Law, 808, 69 Atl. 218; and in so far as it instructed them that the interval of time, however short, required to form the intention to kill included sufficient time for premeditation and deliberation, it was opposed to what we decided in State v. Mangano, 77 N. J. Law, 544, 72 Atl. 366, as well as to the plainest dictates of reason, for, however brief may be the interval of time required for the performance of any one of the three mental acts involved in murder in the first degree, viz., premeditation, willfulness (i. e., intention), and deliberation, the fact remains that they are not only distinct mental acts, but also that one succeeds another as was pointed out in State v. Deliso. They cannot therefore be synchronous as is implied in this instruction.

As was said by Chancellor Magie in State v. Zdanowicz, 69 N. J. Law, 627, 55 Atl. 743, each requires "some appreciable time," if, therefore the briefest period of time appreciable be assigned for the performance of each of these mental acts they could not all be performed in the time thus required for the performance of one of them. Such a construction necessarily emasculates the statute in which the Legislature has defined the degrees of murder, and, in interpreting this statute, we are dealing with the most solemn subject to which language can be applied—the extinction of a human life by judicial decree. This extreme penalty the Legislature has declared in unmistakable language shall not be visited upon one who has committed the crime of murder unless it be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Sing
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1922
    ...State v. Bonofiglio, 67 N.J.L. 239, 91 Am. St. 423, 52 A. 712, 54 A. 99; State v. Deliso, 75 N.J.L. 808, 69 A. 218, 222; State v. Clayton, 83 N.J.L. 673, 85 A. 173; State v. Foster, 130 N.C. 666, 89 Am. St. 876, S.E. 284; State v. Banks, 143 N.C. 652, 57 S.E. 174; Bivens v. State, 11 Ark. 4......
  • People v. Morrin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 16 Marzo 1971
    ...Austin v. United States, fn. 14, Supra, 382 F.2d p. 135; People v. Guadagnino (1922), 233 N.Y. 344, 135 N.E. 594; State v. Clayton (1912), 83 N.J.Law. 673, 85 A. 173; State v. Faust, fn. 43, Supra.Perkins sums up:FN. An additional requirement of this particular clause ('willful, deliberate ......
  • Hudson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1939
    ...State v. Sopher, 70 Iowa 494, 30 N.W. 917; Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1056, 30 N.W. 917; State v. Clayton, 83 N. J. L. 673, 85 A. 173. It not enough that the design to kill existed at the time of the killing, but it must have been formed before it was put into......
  • State v. Metalski
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 1936
    ...v. State, 65 N.J.Law, 557, 47 A. 62, 86 Am. St.Rep. 668; State v. Bertchey, 77 N.J. Law, 640, 73 A. 524, 18 Ann.Cas. 931; State v. Clayton, 83 N.J.Law, 673, 85 A. 173. Now, my brethren of the majority do not express a contrary view. Although two passages of the charge embodying the erroneou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT