State v. Grover
| Decision Date | 01 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
| Citation | 139 A. 417 |
| Parties | STATE v. GROVER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Burlington County.
William Grover was convicted on an indictment for breaking and entering by night a bungalow with intent to steal, and of entering without breaking, and of larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued May term, 1927, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.
Robert Peacock, of Mt. Holly, for plaintiff in error.
George M. Hillman, of Mt. Holly, for the State.
The grand jury of Burlington county presented three indictments against William Grover and Samuel Fennimore. These indictments were tried together, by consent of the parties, and a conviction was had on each one of them. The first count of the first of these indictments charged the defendants with breaking and entering, by night, the bungalow of one Thomas C. Potts, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of said Potts which were in the bungalow. The second count was similar, except that it charged entering without breaking. The last count charged the defendants with stealing household furniture of the said Potts and taking and carrying it away. The second and third of the indictments were to the same effect, except that the ownership of the property was laid in other persons.
The defendant Grover has sued out a writ of error to review the validity of the convictions so far as they affect him.
The first ground upon which he seeks to reverse the convictions is that the trial court erroneously refused to grant the motion, made in his behalf, to direct his acquittal because of the failure of the state to prove him guilty of the charges laid against him in the indictments. Our examination of the proofs sent up on the writ of error satisfies us that they fully justified the action of the trial court in overruling the motion.
The next ground relied upon by the defendant for the reversal of these convictions is that the court erred in refusing to quash the several indictments on his application, the basis of the application being that the last count in each of them failed to show the value of the specific articles alleged to have been stolen. This assignment is without legal substance. It is entirely settled that a motion to quash an indictment is addressed to the discretion of the court, and that, for this reason, its refusal is not reviewable on writ of error. State v. Harris, 124 A. 602; Id., on Error, 100 N. J. Law, 184, 124 A. 603. It may not be amiss, however, to point out that the theory upon which the motion was rested is plainly unsound.
Assuming that the third count in each of these indictments is defective in the request indicated nevertheless the first and second counts thereof, which allege the breaking and entering of the premises of the respective owners with intent to steal and carry away the goods and chattels therein found, but not the actual felonious taking of such property, are, each of them, unobjectionable in form, and consequently a general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nagy
...denied 303 U.S. 646, 58 S.Ct. 645, 86 L.Ed. 1102 (1938); Disque v. State, 49 N.J.L. 249, 8 A. 281 (Sup.Ct.1887); State v. Grover, 104 N.J.L. 10, 139 A. 417 (Sup.Ct.1927). His voluntary offer of testimony at trial upon any fact is a waiver as to all other relevant facts, because of the neces......
-
United States v. Johnson
...however. State v. Barth, Err. & App., 114 N.J.L. 112, 176 A. 183; State v. Von Der Linden, 105 N.J.L. 618, 147 A. 636; State v. Grover, Sup., 104 N.J.L. 10, 139 A. 417; State v. Bassone, Err. & App., 109 N.J.L. 176, 160 A. 391; State v. Sutherland, Sup., 123 N.J.L. 513, 9 A.2d 807, affirmed......
-
State v. Bartell
...the rule of evidence. It is observed that Chief Justice Gummere delivering the opinion of the court in State v. Grover, 104 N.J.L. 10, 12, 139 A. 417, 418 (Sup.Ct.1927), said: 'But the rule upon which the objection was based has no application where the cross-examination is of a person who ......
-
State v. Kaufman
...State v. Matarazza, 93 N.J.L. 47, 49, 107 A. 266 (Sup.Ct.1919), affirmed 94 N.J.L. 263, 109 A. 304 (E. & A.1920); State v. Grover, 104 N.J.L. 10, 139 A. 417 (Sup.Ct.1927); State v. Longo, 133 N.J.L. 301, 44 A.2d 349 (E. & A.1945); State v. Rogers, 8 N.J.Super. 64, 73 A.2d 274 (App.Div.1950)......