State v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 31 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 253.,253. |
| Citation | 44 A.2d 390,133 N.J.L. 348 |
| Parties | STATE v. DIXON et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Pete Dixon and Louis Mungioli were charged with conspiracy, and they bring certiorari.
Writ dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
.
An indictment charging a conspiracy to pervert and obstruct justice is sufficient even though the overt act charged done, in pursuance thereof, may be lawful.
October term, 1945, before CASE, BODINE, and PERSKIE, JJ.
George S. Friedman and Joseph Narrow, both of Salem, for prosecutors.
William R. Smith, of Salem, for defendant.
An indictment is brought before us on certiorari. It charges that Pete Dixon and Louis Mungioli, ‘did conspire, * * * to commit an act for the perversion and obstruction of justice and the due administration of the laws, to wit, to have the sentence of Pete Dixon theretofore charged with an assault upon one J. W. Rainnie and an assault upon one Junior Harris, and with resisting arrest, fixed to the end that the said Pete Dixon would obtain probation rather than commitment to States Prison * * *.’ The overt act charged done in pursuance of the conspiracy was the payment by Dixon to Mungioli of the sum of $800.
The statutes of this state respecting conspiracies are to be found in R.S. 2:119-1 & 2, N.J.S.A. It was necessary to charge an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. The act charged was the payment of money by one conspirator to another. The conspiracy was to commit ar act injurious to the public, the perversion or obstruction of justice. Hence, the act done-the payment of money-may have been lawful, still the evil purpose charged makes the indictment sufficient. See State v. Herbert, 92 N.J.L. 341, at page 355, 105 A. 796; State v. Hemmendinger, 100 N.J.L. 234, 126 A. 544.
The act done in such case need not be unlawful. Suffice it, that the charge was that the conspiracy was to prejudice the public. State v. Continental Purchasing Co., 119 N.J.L. 257, 195 A. 827, affirmed 121 N.J.L. 76, 1 A.2d 377. See also an exhaustive study of indictments for conspiracy in the case of State v. Ellenstein, 121 N.J.L. 304, 2 A.2d 454.
The writ will be dismissed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. La Fera
...complicity nor an interference in any physical sense with the full performance by the official of his duty, see State v. Dixon, 133 N.J.L. 348, 44 A.2d 390 (Sup.Ct.1945); State v. Hemmendinger, 100 N.J.L. 234, 126 A. 544 (Sup.Ct.1924), affirmed 101 N.J.L. 417, 128 A. 922 (E. & A.1925); Stat......
-
State v. Cormier, A--74
...from certain exceptions (N.J.S. 2A:98--2, N.J.S.A.), for a conviction on a charge of statutory conspiracy. See State v. Dixon, 133 N.J.L. 348, 44 A.2d 390 (Sup.Ct.1945); State v. Dennis, 43 N.J. 418, 423, 204 A.2d 868 (1964). Here, the conspiracy indictment set forth, as overt acts, the $50......
-
State v. Hernandez
...100 N.J.L. 234, 237, 126 A. 544 (Sup.Ct.1924), aff'd o. b. 101 N.J.L. 417, 128 A. 922 (E. & A.1925); State v. Dixon, 133 N.J.L. 348, 349, 44 A.2d 390 (Sup.Ct.1945). The trial judge found that N.J.S.A. 24:21-24(a) changed the penalty for conspiring to violate the narcotic laws from a high mi......
-
State v. Ralph Barone and Sons
...N.J.L. 257, 260, 195 A. 827, 830 (Sup.Ct.1938), aff'd o.b. 121 N.J.L. 76, 1 A.2d 377 (E. & A. 1938)) See also, State v. Dixon, 133 N.J.L. 348, 349, 44 A.2d 390 (Sup.Ct.1945); State v. Ellenstein, 121 N.J.L. 304, 314, 2 A.2d 454 In view of our denial of defendants' motions for leave to appea......