State v. Raney
| Decision Date | 12 June 1899 |
| Parties | STATE v. RANEY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to court of quarter sessions, Hudson county.
Thomas Raney was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1899, before MAGIE, C. J., and GARRISON, LIPPINCOTT, and COLLINS, JJ.
William D. Daly, for plaintiff in error.
James S. Erwin, for the State.
The record brought up with this writ of error discloses an indictment against plaintiff in error, found at the April term, 1898, upon which he was arraigned on the 18th of May, and tried, and convicted on the 12th of July in the same year. The quarter sessions of Hudson county, in which the trial was had, has certified the proceedings had upon the trial, and it is contended thereon by plaintiff in error that he suffered manifest wrong or injury by the admission of illegal testimony in the charge made to the jury, and in his conviction upon the evidence adduced upon the trial. The supplement to the criminal procedure act approved May 9, 1894, was in force when plaintiff in error was indicted and arraigned. When he was tried and convicted, that act had been repealed, and the 136th section of the criminal procedure act of 1898 had become applicable. 1 Gen. St. p. 1154; Laws 1898, pp. 915, 934. It is unnecessary to determine which of these acts is to be applied to the claim of plaintiff in error, because an examination of the whole proceedings in the respect specified clearly indicates that no wrong or injury was suffered by plaintiff in error, and that his conviction was correct It is further contended that the conviction of plaintiff in error should be reversed upon the ground that he did not have the assistance of counsel in his defense. This contention is based upon an exception in these words: "Defendant further excepts in that he was not defended by counsel." Neither the bill of exception nor the transcript of the proceedings discloses whether plaintiff in error was of ability to procure counsel, or whether he asked that counsel should be assigned to him. The only question raised by such an exception is whether a criminal court commits error by proceeding to try an accused person without counsel. If so, it is obvious that counsel must be assigned to every accused, although he is of ability to procure counsel, but neglects or refuses to do so, or prefers to defend himself without the assistance of counsel. This argument is novel, and ignores the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worbetz v. Goodman
...our State imposed any obligation upon the court in 1947 to advise a defendant affirmatively of his right to counsel (State v. Raney, 63 N.J.L. 363, 43 A. 677 (Sup.Ct.1899); State v. Murphy, 87 N.J.L. 515, 94 A. 640 (E. & A.1915); State v. Cynkowski, supra; State v. Worbetz, 17 N.J. 569, 112......
-
State v. Cynkowski
...be affirmatively advised of his right to counsel. See State v. Murphy, 87 N.J.L. 515, 94 A. 640 (E. & A.1915); State v. Raney, 63 N.J.L. 363, 365, 43 A. 677 (Sup.Ct.1899). Our new practice rules adopted in 1948 do embody an express provision requiring the court to advise a defendant, who ap......
-
Janiec v. McCorkle, s. A--124
...be affirmatively advised of his right to counsel. See State v. Murphy, 87 N.J.L. 515, 94 A. 640 (E. & A.1915); State v. Raney, 63 N.J.L. 363, 365, 43 A. 677 (Sup.Ct.1899). Our new practice rules adopted in 1948 do embody an express provision requiring the court to advise a defendant, who ap......
-
Greenough, In re
...23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 979, page 316; 14 Am.Jur. 887; State v. Yoes, 67 W. Va. 546, 68 S.E. 181, 140 Am.St.Rep. 978; State v. Raney, 63 N.J.L. 363, 43 A. 677; State v. Murphy, 87 N.J.L. 515, 94 A. 640, 646; State v. Mewhinney, 43 Utah 135, 134 P. 632, L.R.A.1916D, 590, 593, Ann.Cas.1916......