State v. Finate, s. 58928
| Decision Date | 18 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 58928,58929,s. 58928 |
| Citation | 13 N.J.Super. 302,80 A.2d 341 |
| Parties | STATE v. FINATE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Horace K. Roberson, Pros. of Hudson County, Jersey City (Frank J. V. Gimino, Asst. Pros., Jersey City, appearing), for the State.
Joseph P. Hanrahan, Hoboken, for defendants.
ZIEGENER, J.C.C.
Enis Finate and Madeline Finate, defendants, appeal from judgments of conviction rendered against them by the Municipal Court of Weehawken, New Jersey, on October 2, 1950, in which they were adjudged guilty of violating R.S. 2:202--8, N.J.S.A. commonly called the Disorderly Persons Act. The specific charge against Enis Finate is that on September 17, 1950, at 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts, said Enis Finate did utter certain loud and offensive or indecent language from the yard of 168 Highwood Avenue, Weehawken, New Jersey; the specific charge against Madeline Finate is that on July 12, 1950, at 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts, and again on September 17, 1950, at 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts, said Madeline Finate did utter loud and offensive or indecent language, on both occasions, from the porch of 168 Highwood Avenue aforesaid. Each of the defendants was fined $25 and said fines were paid.
It has been established that 168 Highwood Avenue, Weehawken, New Jersey, where it is alleged the offenses were committed, is the home of the defendants. The statute which they are accused of violating reads as follows: 'Any person who, being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, shall loiter in any public or quasi-public place, or in or upon any private property not his own within this state, or who, not being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, shall there indulge in and utter loud and offensive or indecent language, shall be adjudged a disorderly person.'
The statute itself indicates that a person cannot be charged with an offense thereunder while on his own property. And to cover this situation many municipalities have adopted ordinances relating to disorderly conduct upon one's own property. However, it is immediately apparent that the defendants here cannot be guilty of an offense under this section.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, preliminary to the trial De novo, is opposed by the State on the ground that the sufficiency of the complaint cannot be attacked in view of Rule 2:11(h), which now reads to the effect that an appeal of this nature operates as a waiver of defects in the record, the process, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groman v. Township of Manalapan
...Supp.1994). In seeking to determine whether that element could be met here, we turn to New Jersey case law. In State v. Finate, 13 N.J.Super. 302, 80 A.2d 341, 341 (Law Div.1951), the police charged the first defendant with uttering "certain loud and offensive or indecent language from the ......
-
State v. Palendrano
...have been charged with specific violation of the appropriate sections of the Disorderly Persons Act. Compare State v. Finate, 13 N.J.Super. 302, 80 A.2d 341 (Cty.Ct.1951) and Mullen v. State, 67 N.J.L. 451, 51 A. 461 In almost two centuries of statehood, our Legislature has never once addre......
-
State v. Henry
...original form expressly permit amendment of the complaint on the De novo review of a local court conviction. In State v. Finate, 13 N.J.Super. 302, 80 A.2d 341 (Cty.Ct.1951), it was held that the omission in Rule 2:11(h) of any grant of power to amend left the County Court without such powe......
- Ptak v. General Elec. Co.