State v. Pratts
| Decision Date | 05 November 1976 |
| Citation | 365 A.2d 928,71 N.J. 399 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Antonio PRATTS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Edward J. Dimon, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, East Orange, for defendant-appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
Solomon P. Rosengarten, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney; William Welaj, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel and on the brief).
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion, 145 N.J.Super. 79, 366 A.2d 1327.
Defendant has referred us to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), a decision not cited to or considered by the Appellate Division. However, that case does not call for a different result. There the United States Supreme Court held that an accused had a constitutional right to conduct his own defense in a situation where, well before trial, he had made an intelligent and knowing waiver of his right to assistance of counsel and requested that he be permitted to represent himself. However, Faretta recognized that when a defendant chooses to have a lawyer represent him at trial, ordinarily such counsel controls trial strategy. Here, despite defendant's objection at the time, trial counsel's decision not to call a witness whom he had interviewed and whose testimony he was satisfied would be more damaging than helpful to defendant's case, cannot be faulted. The trial court's decision not to involve itself in what was purely a matter of trial strategy was quite correct under the circumstances.
Affirmed.
For affirmance: Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER and Judge CONFORD--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bontempo
...Certif. den. 75 N.J. 26, 379 A.2d 257 (1977); State v. Pratts, 145 N.J.Super. 79, 366 A.2d 1327 (App.Div.1975), aff'd 71 N.J. 399, 365 A.2d 928 (1976). Finally, the trial judge advised defendant that he could refer to matters not in evidence when making his statement to the jury. Plainly, d......
-
State v. Espino
...1009, 88 S.Ct. 572, 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967), and State v. Pratts, 145 N.J.Super. 79, 366 A.2d 1327 (App.Div.1975), aff'd o.b., 71 N.J. 399, 365 A.2d 928 (1976), on the basis that in those cases the original underlying convictions had remained undisturbed and the sentence alone had been change......
-
State v. Anderson
...on other grounds 79 N.J. 251, 398 A.2d 1271 (1979); State v. Pratts, 145 N.J.Super. 79, 94, 366 A.2d 1327 (App.Div.1975), aff'd 71 N.J. 399, 365 A.2d 928 (1976). Unlawful possession requires the State to prove not only that a defendant possessed a gun but also that he lacked a permit for it......
-
State v. Bowen
...U.S. 1009, 88 S.Ct. 572, 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) and State v. Pratts, 145 N.J.Super. 79, 366 A.2d 1327 (App.Div.1975), aff'd o.b. 71 N.J. 399, 365 A.2d 928 (1976). In sum, we perceive nothing in the double jeopardy principle or in the policies upon which the prohibition rests barring the Rese......