State v. Fischer
| Decision Date | 28 March 1922 |
| Citation | 117 A. 519 |
| Parties | STATE v. FISCHER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Essex County.
Alfred H. Fischer was convicted of atrocious assault and battery, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1921, before TRENOHARI), BERGEN, and MINTURN, JJ.
J. Randolph Woodruff, of Newark, for plaintiff in error.
J. H. Harrison, Prosecutor of the Pleas, and Wilbur A. Mott, Asst. Prosecutor of the Pleas, both of Newark, for the State.
The defendant below, a Newark policeman, was convicted, in the Essex quarter sessions, of atrocious assault and battery on one James F. Harrigan. He brings up the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial, and assigns error on his bill of exceptions, and also specifies causes for reversal under sections 136 and 137 of the Criminal Procedure Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, pp. 1863, 1866). We are of the opinion that no sufficient reason for reversal is presented.
It is contended that the trial Judge erred in refusing the defendant's request to charge. Not so. The request, in so far as it embodied any pertinent legal principle, had been charged in substance, and the judge was not bound to repeat it in the language requested. Pavan v. Worthen & Aldrich Co., 80 N. J. Law, 567, 78 Atl. 658, affirmed 82 N. J. Law, 615, 83 Atl. 960.
The defendant also assigns as error that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that it does not appear from the testimony that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By virtue of chapter 349, Laws of 1921 (page 951), where, as here, the plaintiff in error brings up the entire record with his writ of error as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, and assigns as error that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, if it shall appear to the appellate court from a consideration of the entire evidence that such verdict was against the weight of evidence, the court will reverse such verdict and award a new trial; but if from such consideration it appears that such verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, the court will not go further and consider an assignment that it does not appear from the evidence that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason is this: Prior to the taking effect of chapter 349 of Laws of 1921, where a case came up for review on error on a strict bill of exceptions or under paragraph 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or by both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blum
...(People v. Kincy, 72 Ill.App.2d 419, 219 N.E.2d 662, 665--666; State v. Urbaytis, 156 Ohio St. 271, 102 N.E.2d 248, 252; State v. Fischer, 97 N.J.L. 34, 117 A. 519 (affd. 98 N.J.L. 293, 118 A. 927).) Virginia's courts will review 'all the evidence' (Spangler v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 436, 50......
-
State v. Treficanto
...its weight, the court will not go further and consider whether the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Fischer, 97 N. J. Law, 34, 36, 117 A. 519, affirmed 98 N. J. Law, 293,118 A. To justify the setting aside of a verdict as against the weight of the evidence that fact ......
-
State v. Cutrone
...the substance of the proposition contained in the request. State v. Pisaniello, 88 N.J.L. 262, 96 A. 89 (E. & A.1915); State v. Fischer, 97 N.J.L. 34, 117 A. 519; affirmed 98 N.J.L. 293, 118 A. 927 (1922); State v. Burrell, 112 N.J.L. 330, 170 A. 843 (E. & A.1934). Thus it has been held whe......
-
State v. Sturchio.
...court is not empowered to consider whether the state of the evidence left a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. State v. Fischer, 97 N.J.L. 34, 117 A. 519. Second, that the verdict is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To justify an appellate court in reversing a convict......