State v. Cracker
| Citation | 47 A. 643,65 N.J.L 410 |
| Parties | STATE v. CRACKER. |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1900 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to court of quarter sessions, Mercer county.
Nicola Cracker was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1900, before the CHIEF JUSTICE and GUMMERE, LUDLOW, and FORT, JJ.
John A. Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.
William J. Orossley, for the State.
In this case the second assignment of error raises one of the same questions determined at this term in State v. Goldman, 47 Atl. 641, as to the effect of the refusal of the judge to arrest the judgment after conviction upon the ground that the indictment was returned in the oyer and terminer by a grand jury sworn in the sessions, and is upon exactly the same state of facts as were involved in that case; and we find no error, for the reasons there given.
The third assignment of error in this case is also similar to the third, fifth, and sixth assignments, which were not sustained in State v. Goldman, and are not sustained here, for the same reasons.
The only remaining exception in this case is one that was taken to the ruling of the court allowing Michael Bender, a lad of 12 years of age, to be sworn. Whether a child is of proper age and competent to testify is a matter of inquiry by the court, and rests largely in the discretion of the trial Judge; and, if there be evidence from which the trial judge may find capacity to be a witness, the exercise of judicial discretion should not be disturbed. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 367; 2 Tayl. Ev. pt. 1, p. 1170, § 1377. In this case, however, there can be no question, as the evidence satisfies this court that the lad sufficiently understood the nature of an oath, and the consequences incident to false testimony. The boy under examination, to ascertain whether he should be sworn, was asked and answered the following questions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Rowe
-
State v. Gambutti, A--291
...483, 67 A. 386 (E. & A.1907); State v. Tolla, 72 N.J.L. 515, 522, 62 A. 675, 3 L.R.A., N.S., 523 (E. & A.1905); State v. Cracker, 65 N.J.L. 410, 47 A. 643 (Sup.Ct.1900). Here, when the infant complainant was called to the stand the usual inquiry was pursued by the trial judge to determine h......
-
Biondo v. Allan
...sole province of the trial judge. Maisto v. Maisto, 123 N.J.L. 401, 8 A.2d 810; State v. Martin, 102 N.J.L. 388, 132 A. 93; State v. Cracker, 65 N.J.L. 410, 47 A. 643. The testimony of this witness was that she had witnessed the accident and had seen an automobile strike the child. We think......
-
Carlotz v. Gavin, 8.
...judgment will not be reviewed on error, unless it is plainly shown to have been made without any evidence to support it. State v. Cracker, 65 N.J.L. 410, 47 A. 643; State v. Tolla, 72 N.J.L. 515, 62 A. 675, 3 L.R.A., N.S., 523.’ State v. Labriola, 75 N.J.L. 483, 485, 67 A. 386, 387. The cou......