State v. Hogan.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. A-166.,A-166. |
| Parties | STATE v. HOGAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Former Supreme Court.
Louis R. Hogan was convicted of malfeasance, the conviction was affirmed, 137 N.J.L. 497, 61 A.2d 70, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Harry Green, of Red Bank, and Philip L. Lipman, of Vineland, for appellant.
Joseph B. Perskie, of Atlantic City, for appellee.
We are in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice Burling, speaking for the former Supreme Court, with this qualification: With respect to the introduction of neutralization testimony the opinion states (137 N.J.L. 497, 61 A.2d 73): ‘The control of this examination is within the discretion of the trial court’, citing State v. D.‘Adame, Err. & App.1913, 84 N.J.L. 386, 86 A. 414, Ann.Cas.1914B, 1109; State v. Kysilka, Err. & App.1913, 85 N.J.L. 712, 90 A. 309, and State v. Guida, Sup.1937, 118 N.J.L. 289, 192 A. 445, affirmed Err. & App.1937, 119 N.J.L. 464, 196 A. 711.
While the admission and extent of neutralization testimony is discretionary with the court, such discretion is not of an arbitrary or absolute character but a legal discretion. It relates to the question of whether, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case, justice requires that the evidence be admitted. As said by Lord Mansfield legal discretion means ‘sound discretion, guided by law,’ and not by whim or humor. La Bell v. Quasdorf, Sup.1936, 116 N.J.L. 368, 184 A. 750.
The judgment of the former Supreme Court is affirmed.
For affirmance: Chief Justice VANDERBILT and Justices HEHER, OLIPHANT and ACKERSON-4.
For reversal: Justice WACHENFELD-1.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Begyn
...State v. Garrison, 130 N.J.L. 350, 33 A.2d 113 (Sup.Ct.1943); State v. Hogan, 137 N.J.L. 497, 61 A.2d 70 (Sup.Ct.1948), affirmed 1 N.J. 375, 63 A.2d 886 (1949); State v. Dunphy, 19 N.J. 531, 117 A.2d 617 (1955), 24 N.J. 10, 130 A.2d 606 Definitions of misconduct in office are necessarily br......
-
State v. Dwyer
...and did not testify in an unexpected manner. See State v. Hogan, 137 N.J.L. 497, 501, 61 A.2d 70 (Sup.Ct.1948) aff. o.b. 1 N.J. 375, 63 A.2d 886 (1949); see also State v. Ross, 80 N.J. 239, 252, 403 A.2d 457 (1979) and subsequent amendments to Evid.R. 20, 63(1)(a); State v. Gross, 216 N.J.S......
-
State v. Bunk
...v. Quasdorf, 116 N.J.L. 368, 184 A. 750 (Sup.Ct.1936); State v. Hunter, 4 N.J.Super. 531, 68 A.2d 274 (App.Div.1949); State v. Hogan, 1 N.J. 375, 63 A.2d 886 (Sup.Ct. 1949); State v. Collins, 2 N.J. 406, 67 A.2d 158 (Sup.Ct.1949). The exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on app......
-
State v. Baechlor
...of whether, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case, justice requires that the evidence be admitted.' State v. Hogan, 1 N.J. 375, 63 A.2d 886, 887 (1949). The admission of such testimony should be grounds for reversal only where it appears that the trial judge abused such I......