State v. Mcgovern.
| Citation | 136 N.J.L. 115,54 A.2d 812 |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 212.,212. |
| Parties | STATE v. McGOVERN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
William J. McGovern was indicted for violating his duty as sheriff to take the fingerprints of certain persons who were arrested on indictable offenses and be brings certiorari and moves to quash the indictment.
Writ dismissed and motion denied.
See also 134 N.J.L. 466, 47 A.2d 47.
May term, 1947, before CASE, C. J., and BURLING, J.
Horace K. Roberson, Prosecutor of the Pleas of the County of Hudson, of Bayonne, and William P. Gannon, Asst. Pros., of Jersey City, for the State.
Maurice C. Brigadier, of Jersey City, for defendant.
The defendant moves to quash two indictments upon the grounds (1) that they are insufficient in that they fail to charge the commission of a crime and fail to inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation, (2) that they are so vague and uncertain that an acquittal thereon would not assure subsequent protection against double jeopardy, and (3) that they fail to charge the establishment of any finger print system of identification by the Superintendent of the State Police and to charge that any forms had been prescribed.
The defendant was sheriff of the County of Hudson.
The essential statutory provision is R.S. 53:1-15, N.J.S.A., which provides: ‘The sheriffs * * * shall immediately upon the arrest of any person for an indictable offense, or of any person believed to be wanted for an indictable offense, or believed to be an habitual criminal, take the fingerprints of such person according to the fingerprint system of identification established by the superintendent of state police and on the forms prescribed, and forward without delay two copies or more of the same, together with photographs and such other descriptions as may be required and with a history of the offense committed, to the state bureau of identification.’
The indictments, in so far as the questions at issue go, are of like content, and the consideration of one will answer for both.
The indictment charges generally that McGovern as sheriff was charged with the duty to take fingerprints immediately of such persons as are arrested for an indictable offense according to the fingerprint system of identification established by the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police and on the forms prescribed and to forward the same without delay, two copies or more of the same, together with photographs and such other descriptions as may be required and with a history of the offense committed to the New Jersey State Bureau of Identification. The indictment continues with the allegation that the Grand Inquest of the County of Hudson, on October 24, 1944, returned a true bill of indictment against Robert A. O'Brien, William P. Black and M. James McLaughlin for conspiracy to cheat and defraud the City of Jersey City of its moneys derived from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...v. Jenkins, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.1947), error dismissed 137 N.J.L. 209, 59 A.2d 372 (E. & A.1948); State v. McGovern, 136 N.J.L. 115, 54 A.2d 812 (Sup.Ct.1947); State v. Russo, 6 N.J.Super, 250, 71 A.2d 142 (App.Div.1950); 31 C.J., § 260, 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informatio......
-
State v. Winne
...supra, 39 N.J.L. 423, 425 (Sup.Ct.1877); (2) they may be imposed by a general act of the Legislature as in State v. McGovern, 136 N.J.L. 115, 117, 54 A.2d 812 (Sup.Ct.1947), and State v. O'Brien, 136 N.J.L. 118, 127, 54 A.2d 806 (Sup.Ct.1947); or (3) they may arise out of the very nature of......
-
State v. Weleck
...supra, 39 N.J.L. 423, 425 (Sup.Ct.1877); (2) they may be imposed by a general act of the Legislature as in State v. McGovern, 136 N.J.L. 115, 117, 54 A.2d 812 (Sup.Ct.1947), and State v. O'Brien, 136 N.J.L. 118, 127, 54 A.2d 806 (Sup.Ct.1947); or (3) they may arise out of the very nature of......
-
State v. Stevens
...unauthorized act relating to his office. The rule with reference to the use of statutory language is set forth in State v. McGovern, 136 N.J.L. 115, 54 A.2d 812 (Sup.Ct.1947): Where the words of the statute are descriptive of the offense, it is ordinarily sufficient to charge the offense in......