State v. Gould
| Decision Date | 09 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 122 A. 596 |
| Parties | STATE v. GOULD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Salem County.
Hampton Gould was convicted of burning the barn of another, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued June term, 1923, before GUMMERE, C. J., and MINTURN and BLACK, JJ.
James Mercer Davis, of Camden, and Henry Burt Ware, of Salem, for plaintiff in error.
Daniel W. Beckley, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Woodbury, for the State.
The defendant was convicted upon an indictment charging him with the burning of a barn belonging to one Mary Smith, and he now seeks to reverse that judgment.
The first ground upon which the judgment is attacked is that the verdict of the jury finding him guilty of the charge laid against him is contrary to the weight of the evidence. In disposing of this point it is enough to say that an examination of the testimony sent up with the writ fails to convince us of the truth of this contention. The point is argued as if the question to be determined was whether, on the whole evidence a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt did not exist. But that is not a matter which we can consider, our only function being to determine whether there was a preponderance of the evidence in support of the state's case. We think that there was.
The next ground of reversal is directed at the ruling of the court in admitting in in evidence a pair of shoes taken from the possession of the defendant by the deputy sheriff of the county against his (defendant's) will. It is not suggested that these shoes were not evidential, for they fitted accurately into footprints, discovered the next morning, leading from the public road to the barn of Mrs. Smith and back again. The argument is that, in permitting the shoes, obtained in the way recited, to be submitted as evidence to the jury, the defendant's constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. But, conceding for the purpose of deciding the point raised that the taking of the shoes was an unlawful invasion of the defendant's constitutional right, that fact was no bar to the admission in evidence of these articles. As was stated by Mr. Justice Pitney, writing for this court, in State v. MacQueen, 69 N. J. Daw, 522, 528, 55 Atl. 1006, 1008:
"It is * * * generally held that papers [and other articles] unlawfully procured, even by means of an unjustifiable search or seizure, are nevertheless admissible if evidential per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...107 A. 314; (1858). State v. Flynn, 36 N.H. 64, (Leading Case.) 20. NEW JERSEY. (1921). Katz v. Eldredge, 118 A. 242; (1923). State v. Gould, 122 A. 596; (Nov. 1923). State v. Lyons, 122 A. 758. 21. NEW MEXICO. (1917). State v. Barela, 168 P. 545. 22. NEW YORK. (1922). People v. Esposito, 1......
-
State v. Black
...a justice of the United States Supreme Court, dissented in the Silverthorn Lumber Company Case cited above. In State v. Gould (No. 1), 99 N. J. Law, 17, 18, 122 A. 596, 597, Chief Justice Gummere, speaking for the Supreme Court (Justices Minturn and Black sitting with him), "The argument is......
-
Eleuteri v. Richman
...State v. Lyons, 99 N.J.L. 301, 122 A. 758 (E. & A.1923); State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361, 137 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); State v. Gould, 99 N.J.L. 17, 122 A. 596 (Sup.Ct.1923); State v. Gillette, 103 N.J.L. 523, 138 A. 381 (Sup.Ct.1927); State v. Guida, 118 N.J.L. 289, 192 A. 445 (Sup.Ct.1937), a......
-
State v. Alexander, A-1
...his guilt, and that such an examination would not be deemed an unreasonable search." This rule was firmly embraced in State v. Gould, 99 N.J.L. 17, 122 A. 596 (Sup.Ct.1923), while in State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361, 137 A. 575, 577 (E. & A.1927), Chief Justice Gummere, speaking for the Court......