State v. Forman
| Decision Date | 06 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 97.,97. |
| Citation | 117 A. 50 |
| Parties | STATE v. FORMAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Isaac Forman was convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, and he brought error to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment, and he again brings error. Affirmed.
William R. Wilson, of Elizabeth, for plaintiff in error.
Walter L. Hetfield, Jr., Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Plainfleld, for the State.
WALKER, Ch. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Union county sessions of the crime of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. He removed the judgment into the Supreme Court by writ of error, where it was affirmed. He has removed the Supreme Court's judgment into this court.
This case was submitted on briefs, and in the brief for plaintiff in error this court is asked to consider this case under the act of April 12, 1921, P. L. p. 951, which provides that, whenever the entire record of the proceedings shall be returned with the writ of error (which was done in this case under the criminal procedure act, 2 Comp. Stat. p. 1863, § 136), if it shall appear from a consideration of the entire evidence that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, the appellate court shall remedy the wrong by reversing such verdict and awarding a new trial. This act was passed after the argument in the Supreme Court and before the submission of the case here.
Counsel argues that this act overcomes the objection that no relief could be granted the defendant because no exceptious had been taken. There was an exception to the admission of testimony, but no exception raising the grounds which were argued in the Supreme Court, namely, alleged errors appearing in the charge to the jury. The brief states that the. defendant feels that the errors in the charge are such that the conviction against the defendant should be set aside, and nothing else is argued here except alleged error in the charge. It is not suggested that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and no argument whatever is made to that effect. It seems plain that under an act authorizing this court to examine the weight of the evidence and give judgment accordingly, unless the plaintiff in error challenges the evidence as being insufficient upon which to rest a verdict, that he cannot have the benefit of it; and, as we will not consider questions not raised and argued in the court below (except questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Leaks
...will be considered on appeal whether or not they have been raised below. State v. O'Leary, 110 N.J.L. 36, 163 A. 904; State v. Forman, 97 N.J.L. 168, 117 A. 50; State v. Belkota, 95 N.J.L. 416, 113 A. 142. And this, as has been said, is a matter involving public policy. The evidence in ques......
-
State v. O'Leary
...public policy are exceptions to the general rule that the reviewing tribunal will not examine questions not raised below. State v. Forman, 97 N. J. Law, 168, 117 A. 50; Mahnken v. Meltz, 97 N. J. Law, 159, 116 A. 791. The Court itself may notice these questions even if not raised. State v. ......
- Staub v. Pub. Serv. Ry. Co.