State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 17 April 1924 |
| Citation | 124 A. 602 |
| Parties | STATE v. HARRIS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Abraham E. Harris was convicted upon an indictment charging him with setting fire to a building and merchandise, with intent to prejudice insurance companies, and with aiding and abetting in the burning of the building. Prom a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the conviction, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The following is the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court:
The defendant was convicted in the Essex quarter sessions, upon an indictment which in its first count charged him with setting fire to a certain building in Newark and the goods and merchandise therein contained, with intent to prejudice certain insurance companies. The second count charged him with aiding and abetting in the burning of the building
The first contention is raised upon a motion to quash; that the indictment was insufficient, in that it was duplicitous We do not think that question is properly before us. The refusal of the motion to quash cannot be reviewed on an assignment of error, since it is discretionary with the trial court; nor can it be reviewed under the one hundred and thirty-sixth section of 2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1863, since it precedes the trial itself, and is not a part thereof. It is argued, however, that it is reviewable because of the failure of the trial court to charge the following requests: "There should be a verdict for the defendant on the second count for each and all of the reasons given on the motion to quash the indictment." We do not think this request was proper in form or in substance, since it fails to state the grounds upon which the direction of a verdict should be rested.
The court is under no obligation to go back in a search for proceedings antedating the trial to ascertain what took place at that time; nor is the court assumed to recall accurately matters which occurred in the past, unless presented in reasonably accurate and substantial form as a basis for its recollection. We think, however, the criticism on the indictment in this respect is insubstantial and without merit.
The next point is a criticism upon the court's action in allowing the prosecutor of the pleas to examine the state's witness Gilpatrick, for the purpose of showing that his testimony varied from a precedent statement made to the prosecutor. This ruling was competent under State v. D'Adame, 84 N. J. Law, 386, 86 Atl. 414, Ann. Cas. 1914B. 1109.
It is also urged that the court committed legal error in refusing to strike out certain testimony concerning the value of the machinery at the plant of the Harris Company, of which the defendant was president. The court properly refused the motion, as it came too late. Under our decided cases the objection should have been to the testimony when it was offered. State v. D'Adame, supra. And a similar response applies to the motion to strike out the testimony of the witness Rosenstock.
It is insisted that the court committed legal error in receiving in evidence twelve fire insurance policies covering the stock of the Harris Company The point of this contention is that there was no proof at that time that the defendant was in any wise connected with the Harris Company This objection loses its relevancy, since defendant himself afterward, on the witness stand, testified that he was the president of the company That admission made the policies admissible in evidence (State v Genz, 59 N. J Law, 495, 37 Atl 69, 59 Am. St. Rep. 619), and the action of the trial court became thereby harmless.
It is insisted that there should have been a direction of a verdict in favor of the defendant, because of lack of proof We think there was proof sufficient to go to the jury and that defendant's guilt or innocence under the testimony was not a court question.
It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mosley
...It is within judicial discretion to permit experiments relevant to the issue to be made before the jury during a trial. State v. Harris (N. J. Err. & App.) 124 A. 602. This contention must be The next error alleged is that the judge precluded the jury from finding the defendant guilty of mu......
-
State v. Juliano
...court either on bill of exceptions or upon a "certificate of the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial." State v. Harris, 100 N. J. Law, 184, 124 A. 602. If, however, we examine the questions sought to be presented as was done in the case of State v. Lynch (N. J. Err. & App.) ......
-
State v. Foulds, 8.
...the defendant himself we cannot conceive that the demonstration brought manifest harm or injury to the defendant. Compare State v. Harris, 124 A. 602, 1 N.J.Misc. 526; Morton's Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed. Vol. 1, p. In regard to the second point under this heading, as to whether there is an......
-
State v. Mussikee
...116 A. 766, affirmed 98 N. J. Law, 576, 119 A. 926. Moreover, it would seem that the question is not properly before us. State v. Harris (N. J. Err. & App.) 124 A. 602. The next general point argued is that there was error in refusing to require the state to elect between the two counts. wa......