State v. Hibbs
| Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
| Citation | 123 N.J. Super. 124,301 A.2d 775 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM HIBBS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Before Judges LEWIS, KOLOVSKY and HALPERN.
Mr. Charles P. Allen argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Dietrich, Mancino and Allen, attorneys).
Mr. Gerald A. Hughes, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Bruce M. Schragger, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney).
Trial court's opinion on remand filed September 28, 1972.
By our prior opinion, 123 N.J. Super. 108, on this appeal by defendant from his conviction in the County Court for making obscene telephone calls, N.J.S.A. 2A:170-29(3), we remanded the matter to the County Court for submission of further proofs by the State and defendant on the issue of the reliability of the telephone tracing equipment which, according to the State's proofs, indicated that the calls emanated from a phone in defendant's home. Our opinion concluded:
* * * If the court after the hearing pursuant to the remand determines that the tracing equipment is not sufficiently accurate to produce results admissible as evidence, then a judgment of acquittal should be entered by it. If it determines that such equipment is admissible as evidence then the former verdict of guilt and the sentence imposed shall remain as entered.
* * * Jurisdiction is retained if the guilty verdict is confirmed.
The hearings ordered were held. The State offered the testimony of four employees of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company as well as various exhibits relating to the tracing equipment. Defendant called two witnesses. In addition, the trial judge, in the presence of the parties' attorneys, made an on-site inspection at two offices of the telephone company where the tracing equipment was situated and witnessed tests thereof.
Thereafter the trial judge filed an opinion, 123 N.J. Super. 152, embodying a comprehensive and detailed summary of the evidence he had heard and considered. The findings made by the trial judge concluded:
The court therefore finds that the tracing equipment used by the N.J. Bell Telephone Company, more accurately described as line verification match, as used in the annoyance call program of the company, is reliable and accurate and that the probability of error in such verification is, for the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In-Progress Trace of Wire Communication, Matter of
...123 N.J.Super. 152, 154-159, 301 A.2d 789 (Mercer Cty.Ct.1972) (describing mechanics of an in-progress trace), aff'd 123 N.J.Super. 124, 301 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1973). In this case the phone company had furnished the necessary assistance for an interception and the prosecutor had been success......
-
State v. Hunt
...in-progress trace are fully described in State v. Hibbs, 123 N.J.Super. 152, 154-59, 301 A.2d 789 (Cty.Ct.1972), aff'd, 123 N.J.Super. 124, 301 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1973). To perform the trace, the telephone company connects a "trouble recorder" on the lines of the tapped phone. Like a pen reg......
-
State v. Droutman
...to locate harassing callers is here omitted since State v. Hibbs, 123 N.J.Super. 152, 301 A.2d 789 (Cty.Ct.1972), aff'd 123 N.J.Super. 124, 301 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1973), comprehensively covers the The motion presents the issue of whether the use of a telephone company's tracing equipment to ......
-
State v. Burks
...Hibbs, 123 N.J.Super. 108, 301 A.2d 767 (App.Div.1972), on remand, 123 N.J.Super. 152, 301 A.2d 789 (Cty.Ct.1972), aff'd 123 N.J.Super. 124, 301 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1973), certif. den. 63 N.J. 253, 306 A.2d 456 (1973).5 Mr. Ritter was the assistant ...