State v. Longo.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 10.,10. |
| Citation | 44 A.2d 349,133 N.J.L. 301 |
| Parties | STATE v. LONGO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Supreme Court.
John R. Longo was convicted of causing certain voting records pertaining to primary election votes cast by him to be altered. To review a judgment of the Supreme Court, 132 N.J.L. 515, 41 A.2d 317, which affirmed his conviction, the defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A general verdict of guilty under an indictment containing several counts will be upheld on review in error if the evidence supports a finding of guilty on any one of the counts.
2. The claim that the State suppressed competent and material evidence favorable to defendant, held (a) not supported by the proofs, and (b) in any event not available on strict writ of error.
3. The right of a defendant to be represented by counsel involves the duty of reasonable diligence in employing such counsel, and does not justify indefinite postponement of trial in a case of inordinate delay by defendant.
Raymond Chasan, of Jersey City, for plaintiff in error.
William P. Gannon, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
The essential facts, and history of the litigation, are adequately presented in the comprehensive opinion of Mr. Justice Donges in the Supreme Court, ubi supra, and need not be repeated here. We proceed at once to a consideration of the legal phases of the matter, and the conduct of the case; and as regards the first point made, we express our concurrence in the holding of the court below, that the third count of the indictment adequately charges a criminal offense, and that a general verdict of guilty, based on legal evidence, will stand if there be one good count supported by that evidence. Mead v. State, 53 N.J.L. 601, and cases cited at page 603, 23 A. 264. We further agree that the third count was supported by the evidence. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider the validity vel non of the first and second counts.
The second point is that there was error in that the State ‘suppressed evidence tending to prove the innocence of defendant.’ The Supreme Court correctly decided, at page 523 of 132 N.J.L., at page 321 of 41 A.2d, ‘that there was in fact no suppression of evidence by the State.’ As a matter of fact, the defendant knew of the existence of the evidence in question. It may be well to add that although the case seems to be before us under R.S. 2:195-16, N.J.S.A. formerly Section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the point is not cognizable thereunder, as that statute is limited to proceedings at the trial. The evidence in question was as available to defendant as it was to the State.
Finally, it is argued that there was error in that the court and the prosecuting officers forced on the trial ‘without affording defendant reasonable opportunity to procure the assistance of counsel’ in violation of certain constitutional provisions which need not be specifically cited, because we are clear that the claim is without substantial basis of fact. The trial was postponed several times at the instance of d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murchison v. State
...297 N.Y.S.2d 860 (1969), aff'd, 34 A.D.2d 961, 313 N.Y.S.2d 651 (1970); State v. Longo, 132 N.J.L. 515, 41 A.2d 317 (1945), aff'd, 133 N.J.L. 301, 44 A.2d 349; Jordon v. Bondy, 72 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 114 F.2d 599 (1940). See also Boucher v. Warden, 5 Md.App. 51, 245 A.2d 420 (1968); United St......
-
State v. Yormark
...to choose counsel of his own choice is not an absolute right; reasonable diligence in securing counsel is required. State v. Longo, 133 N.J.L. 301, 44 A.2d 349 (E. & A. 1945). An accused's right to select his own counsel cannot be insisted upon in a manner that will obstruct an orderly proc......
-
Jablonowski v. State
...v. Meyers, 290 Pa. 573, 139 A. 374 (Sup.Ct.1927); State v. Longo, 132 N.J.L. 515, 41 A.2d 317 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 133 N.J.L. 301, 44 A.2d 349 (E. & A.1945). However in the present case former counsel, engaged by the defendant, seems to have withdrawn voluntarily under other circumstance......
-
State v. Kaufman
...affirmed 94 N.J.L. 263, 109 A. 304 (E. & A.1920); State v. Grover, 104 N.J.L. 10, 139 A. 417 (Sup.Ct.1927); State v. Longo, 133 N.J.L. 301, 44 A.2d 349 (E. & A.1945); State v. Rogers, 8 N.J.Super. 64, 73 A.2d 274 (App.Div.1950); Claassen v. U.S., 142 U.S. 140, 12 S.Ct. 169, 35 L.Ed. 966 (19......