State v. Ing Kee
| Decision Date | 19 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 104.,104. |
| Citation | 150 A. 358 |
| Parties | STATE v. ING KEE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the question on which the judge charges must necessarily be read in connection with other matter, then when the two deliverances are read together, and they, thus read, correctly state the law, there is no error.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the presence of the defendant at the time and place of the alleged crime is an essential link in the chain of proof, such presence, like any other essential fact, must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt; and the burden of proving it never rests upon the defendant.
Error to Supreme Court.
Ing Kee and another were convicted under an indictment for assault with intent to kill, the judgment of conviction being affirmed (7 N. J. Misc. R. 676, 147 A. 49), and they bring error.
Affirmed.
George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, and John B. McGeehan, of Bayonne, for plaintiffs in error.
John Drewen, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Jersey City, for the State.
WALKER, Chancellor.
The plaintiffs-inerror, Ing Kee and Sam Moy, were convicted on indictment for assault with intent to kill, and sentence was passed upon the verdict. They sued out a writ of error to the supreme court, where their conviction was affirmed (7 N. J. Misc. R. 676, 147 A. 49), and now they bring error here. They very properly plead in this court that the judgment of the supreme court should be reversed, because it affirmed the judgment of the Hudson quarter sessions though that judgment should have been reversed, which leaves open to them here the argument of any assignment of error or cause for reversal filed in the supreme court. See Diamond Mills Paper Co. v. Leonard Hygiene Ice Co., 95 N. J. Law, 540, 113 A. 139; Burhans v. Paterson, 99 N. J. Law, 491, 123 A. 883. There is another rule, however, which modifies the one just mentioned, and that is, that only errors argued in the court below or in an intermediate court of appeal will be considered in the court above, unless the alleged errors go to jurisdiction or public policy. See State v. Shupe, 88 N. J. Law, 610, 97 A. 271; Franklin Lumber Co. v. Millville, 98 N. J. Law, 262, 119 A. 29; Donohue v. Campbell, 98 N. J. Law, 755, 121 A. 700.
In the supreme court there were four assignments of error, and also identical causes for reversal, as follows: (1) Because the court refused to direct a verdict of acquittal; (2) because the court below allowed the State to introduce finger prints, etc.; (3) because the court charged in a particular stated; and (4) because the verdict was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.
The supreme court in its opinion said that the plaintiffs-inerror's only assignment or specification laid before it as a ground of reversal challenged a paragraph of the charge relating to the claim of alibi interposed by the plaintiffs-inerror. This situation restricts the case in this court to the question of alibi, and counsel very properly argue that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garvin
...the jury which passed muster in State v. Ing Kee, 7 N.J.Misc. 676, 147 A. 49 (Sup.Ct.1929), and again on further review in 106 N.J.L. 336, 150 A. 358 (E. & A. 1930). Cf. State v. Thomas, 11 N.J.Misc. 157, 158, 165 A. 101 (Sup.Ct.1933), affirmed o.b. 111 N.J.L. 239, 168 A. 396 (E. & Moreover......
-
State v. Jewell
...or constructive at the scene of the crime or as to his guilt generally. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 923 b, p. 660; State v. Ing Kee, 1930, 106 N.J.L. 336, 338, 150 A. 358; People v. Elmore, 1938, 277 N.Y. 397, 14 N.E.2d 451; Floyd v. State, 1954, 205 Md. 573, 109 A.2d 729; State v. Brown, 1956......
-
State v. Boyd
...followed the language of the Court of Errors and Appeals in State v. Guarino, 105 N.J.L. 549, 556, 147 A. 395, and in State v. Kee, 106 N.J.L. 336, 338, 150 A. 358. It is next said that the trial court gave erroneous and misleading instructions with regard to circumstantial evidence and err......
-
State v. Searles, A--876
...defendant, and if the testimony on that question alone raises a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal. State v. Kee, 106 N.J.L. 336, 338, 150 A. 358 (E. & A. 1930); State v. Guarino, 105 N.J.L. 549, 147 A. 395 (E. & A.1929). Alibi deals with physical absence and involves the phys......