State v. Merra
| Citation | 134 A. 558 |
| Parties | STATE v. MERRA et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1926 |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Salvatore Merra and Salvatore Rannelli were convicted of first degree murder, and they apply to the chancellor for writ of error under act March 6, 1795 (Paterson's Laws, p. 162). Writ denied.
Felix Forlenza, of Newark, for applicants.
WALKER, Chancellor. This is an application for a writ of error in behalf of the defendants, who were convicted of murder in the first degree in the Essex oyer and terminer, Merra without recommendation to life imprisonment, and consequently he has been sentenced to death. Rannelli, alias Piccoli, was recommended for life imprisonment, and he, consequently, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Although not sentenced to death, the case of Rannelli, or Piccoli, is a capital case, in which the death penalty may yet (in case of conviction on a retrial without recommendation) be inflicted. State v. Giberson. 94 N. J. Eq. 25, 119 A. 284.
The act of 1878 (P. L. p. SO) provides that writs of error in criminal cases punishable with death should be writs of right, instead of writs of grace, by omitting the provision for the Chancellor's order, and expressly provides that such writs should issue of course out of the Court of Errors and Appeals. Notwithstanding this act, applications have ever since been made to the Chancellor in the first instance (as explained in the Giberson Case, supra, and Kohl Case, infra), and, if he refuses to order the writ as of grace out of the Supremo Court, the convict may then sue out such writ from the Court of Errors and Appeals as one of right. Kohl v. State, 59 N. J. Law, 195, 35 A. 652.
Before the passage of the act of 1878, whenever application was made to the Chancellor for a writ of error out of the Supreme Court in a capital case, he required notice to be given to the prosecutor of the pleas, who often appeared before him, with the Attorney General, on behalf of the state, and, after solemn argument, sometimes the application was refused, and the culprit was executed without any review. Since the passage of the act of 1878, the practice of causing notice to be served upon the prosecutor has fallen into disuse, because, if the writ of grace out of the Supreme Court be refused, the state prevails, as it might on argument, and the convict cannot be harmfully aggrieved, because he has the writ of right out of the Court of Errors and Appeals, where the state, being defendant in error, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Treficanto
...a case for allowance of a writ of error should be made to the chancellor under the established procedure in this state. In State v. Merra, 99 N. J. Eq. 480, 134 A. 558, there were two defendants, one convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation, and the other with recommen......
-
State v. Magonia
...v. State, 31 Ala.App. 91, 13 So.2d 583, 587 (Ct. of App.1943), both containing a supply of pertinent citations. In State v. Merra, 99 N.J.Eq. 480, 481, 134 A. 558 (Ch.1926), Chancellor Walker expressed the following '* * * Although not sentenced to death, the case of Rannelli, or Piccoli, i......
-
Caruso v. Caruso
...as petitioner in the same cause by different solicitors of record. See In re Stewart, 85 N. J. Eq. 3, 95 A. 739, also, State v. Merra, 99 N. J. Eq. 480, 134 A. 558, on the subject of solicitors of record, Now, as shown, the bill in this case was for the settling of the accounts of the compl......
-
Salmons v. Rugyeri
...of $2. Charles H. Reichert, Sheriff, by Frank Conrad, Spec. Dep." The attorneys for the plaintiff (there should only be one, State v. Merra [N. J. Ch.] 134 A. 558), were notified on behalf of the defendant that application would be made to Mr. Justice Trenchard of the Supreme Court for an o......