State v. Garrison

• Citation: 33 A.2d 113,130 N.J.L. 350
• Decision Date: 20 July 1943
• Docket Number: No. 13.,13.
• Parties: STATE v. GARRISON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

130 N.J.L. 350

33 A.2d 113

STATE

v.GARRISON et al.

No. 13.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 20, 1943.

William S. Garrison and others were convicted of conspiracy to commit crimes involving misuse of defendants' position as members of board of aldermen of city, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The law has never laid down rules as to the procedure of a grand jury.

2. Although the foreman of a grand jury may administer an oath to a witness called before that body, he is not obliged to.

3. Grand juries may act though statements made before them are not under oath.

4. Grand juries may deliberate without the entire number of jurors sworn being present.

5. A motion to quash an indictment for irregularity in the procedure of the grand jury is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on strict bill or under the broad power to review trial errors whether excepted to or not.

May term, 1943, before BROGAN, C. J., and BODINE, J.

Arthur C. Dunn, of Paterson, for the State.

Nicholas O. Beery, of Paterson, for plaintiffs in error.

BODINE, Justice.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted of a conspiracy to commit the crimes set forth in the indictment. The criminal activities charged broadly involve the misuse of their position as members of the Board of Aldermen of the city of Paterson. It was charged that they were corruptly instrumental in refusing a junk yard license and in changing and altering junk yard ordinances. The case was purely one of fact and was, we think, properly submitted to the jury. If they believed the witnesses called by the state, they must have found as they did.

The first point made for a reversal is error in denying the request made on motion to quash the indictment to submit affidavits indicating that the foreman of the grand jury was not present in the grand jury room during its deliberations and while testimony to support the indictment was given.

A motion to quash an indictment is addressed to the discretion of the court, and a denial thereof is not reviewable on strict writ of error or under section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act now R.S. 2:195-16, N.J.S.A. 2:195-16. State v. Pisaniello, 88 N.J.L. 262, 96 A. 89; State v. Haimowicz, 125 N.J.L. 526, 17 A.2d 472. The indictment before us is not insufficient on its face. See State v. Borg, 152 A. 788, 9 N.J.Misc. 59. The trial court and this court are in no way concerned with the sufficiency or the insufficiency, the competency or incompetency of the testimony before the grand jury. State v. Dayton, 23 N.J.L. 49, 53 Am.Dec. 270; State v. Borg, 150 A. 189, 8 N.J.Misc. 349, 705. The defendant in a criminal case has no right to be informed of the evidence on which the grand jury acted. It is the grand jurors' responsibility to consider the matter and not the function of the court to review the basis for their action, except in case of misconduct.

Suffice it that the facts charged in the indictment constitute a crime. Even though the foreman of the grand jury, or, in his absence, one selected by the court, has power to administer an oath to witnesses, R.S. 2:89-1, 2, N.J.S.A. 2:89-1, 2:89-2, it is not incumbent that witnesses before a grand jury be sworn. There is no standard laid down in the law for the procedure of that body.

It is argued that the indictment was insufficient in...