State v. Popick
| Citation | 84 A. 1061,83 N.J.L. 318 |
| Parties | STATE v. POPICK. |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1912 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
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.
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 of error relied upon by counsel for the defendant.
It is true that the rule of evidence generally applicable upon the question of the admissibility of testimony such as that which was made the subject of objection is as counsel for the defendant stated as his ground for making it. But this rule has numerous exceptions; and one of them is that when the act done by the defendant and charged to be criminal may reasonably be innocent, and is criminal only when performed with a certain intent, or with knowledge of a certain fact, other acts of the defendant, though criminal, may be adduced to prove that he had such specific knowledge or intent: and in this category is embraced the reception of stolen goods. State v. Raymond, 53 N. J. Law, 265, 21 Atl. 328.
The testimony which was objected to, being within the exception to the rule, was properly admitted, and the judgment under review will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DiRienzo
...story that DiRienzo was away on a trip at the time of the alleged delivery of the stolen goods to his apartment. See State v. Popick, 83 N.J.L. 318, 84 A. 1061 (Sup.Ct.1912); Wertheimer & Goldberg v. State, 201 Ind. 572, 169 N.E. 40, 68 A.L.R. 178 (1929). The defendant has not suggested in ......
-
State v. Wright
...New Jersey. McCormick on Evidence (2 ed. 1972), § 190; State v. Fay, 127 N.J.L. 77, 21 A.2d 607 (Sup.Ct.1941); State v. Popick, 83 N.J.L. 318, 84 A. 1061 (Sup.Ct.1912). In recognition of this long established principle, Rule 55 itself expressly provides that such evidence 'is admissible to ......
-
State v. Rosenberg
... ... goods which are the subject of the charge. People v ... Fryer, 266 Ill. 217, 107 N.E. 134; Sapir v. United ... States, 174 F. 219, 98 C.C.A. 227; State v ... Ward, 49 Conn. 429; Beuchert v. State, 165 Ind ... 523, 76 N.E. 111, 6 Ann. Cas. 914; State v. Popick, ... 83 N.J. Law, 318, 84 A. 1061; State v. Cohen, 254 ... Mo. 437, 162 S.W. 216, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 86 ... Defendant ... claims a variance in that the indictment charges ownership in ... the railroad company and the proof disclosed ownership in ... [155 Minn. 41] the ... ...
-
State v. Harris
...where the crime proved is an incident to, a part of, or leads up to the crime with which a defendant is charged. State v. Popick, 83 N.J.L. 318, 319, 84 A. 1061 (Sup.Ct.1912); State v. Fay, 127 N.J.L. 77, 82--83, 21 A.2d 607 (Sup.Ct.1941). So, too, proof of other crimes may be admitted to e......