The State v. Popick

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE.
• Citation: The State v. Popick, 84 A. 1061, 83 N.J.L. 318 (N.J. 1912)
• Decision Date: 11 November 1912
• Parties: THE STATE v. ABRAHAM POPICK

84 A. 1061

83 N.J.L. 318

STATE

v. POPICK.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 11, 1912.

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Essex County.

Abraham Popick was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued June term, 1912, before GUMMERE, C. J., and GARRISON and BERGEN, JJ.

Henry Pomerehne, of Newark, for plaintiff in error.

Wilbur A. Mott, of Newark, Prosecutor of the Pleas, for the State.

GUMMERE, C. J. The plaintiff in error, who was a bicycle dealer in Newark, was convicted on two indictments, each charging him with receiving stolen goods. The property stolen consisted of two bicycles, one belonging to Adam Sinsel, and the other to Clarence Bohnenberger. The indictments were tried together. The case made by the state was that these bicycles had been stolen by a youth named Chambosse, and sold by him to the defendant. For the purpose of showing that the latter knew he was purchasing stolen property, the state proved that Chambosse had sold to him five or six other bicycles which he had stolen. This testimony was objected to by the defendant on the ground that it was incompetent on the trial of an indictment charging one crime to introduce evidence tending to prove that the defendant had been guilty of other crimes, even though they were similar in character. The objection was overruled by the trial court, and this judicial action is made the basis of the sole assignment...