State v. Howard

• Decision Date: 20 June 1912
• Citation: 87 A. 436,83 N.J.L. 636
• Parties: STATE v. HOWARD.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

87 A. 436

83 N.J.L. 636

STATE

v. HOWARD.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 20, 1912.

Error to Supreme Court.

George Howard was convicted of larceny from the person. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and he brings error. Affirmed.

The following per curiam opinion was filed in the Supreme Court:

"The defendant was indicted in 1905 for larceny from the person of one Edward Aurnhammer of $36 in money whereof he was duly convicted, in May, 1910.

"The first assignment of error involves a series of questions and answers, seven in number, excepted to as incompetent, no other reasons being given. They are as follows: 'Q. How long after you say you lost it? A. How long after I lost it? Q. Yes. A. It was about, if I recollect when it was (interrupted) * * * Q. How long after you made the complaint in the police station, the written complaint, did you get your money back? A. I think it was a few day after; I cannot tell. Q. While these men were in custody? * * * A. Yes. Q. How much did you get back? A. Forty dollars. Q. Where were you when you got this money back? * * * A. I was in the place of business, my brother's place of business, when I got the money back. Q. Where? A. In Newark.' Apparently, exception was taken to the last question only. No grounds are stated, and therefore the ruling cannot be reviewed on error. Wallace, Muller & Co. v. Leber, 65 N. J. Law, 198, 47 Atl. 430.

"The next assignment is as to the following question put upon cross-examination: 'Q. You say you got your money back while these men were in custody. What do you mean by that? A. It was brought to me by a woman who claimed to be the wife of one of these men.' There was a motion then made to strike it out, on the ground that it was not responsive. When the examiner on cross-examination goes into the meaning of the plaintiff's language he is very apt to get more than he desires. Having taken the risk, and sought witness' meaning, he ought to be bound, in error, by the statement of the witness thus called for. The answer is responsive.

"The next is as to the language employed by the prosecutor in addressing the jury. It was no more than just comment, and does not constitute error.

"The next is as to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony as to the alleged return of the money. This fact was fairly in the case, and it was not error to refuse to take from the jury's consideration.

"The court charged the jury, concerning the right of...