State v. Rappise., No. A 136-48.

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtCOLIE, Judge.
Citation65 A.2d 266
PartiesSTATE v. RAPPISE.
Decision Date24 March 1949
Docket NumberNo. A 136-48.

65 A.2d 266

STATE
v.
RAPPISE.

No. A 136-48.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Part B.

March 24, 1949.


Appeal from Bergen County Court; Herman Vanderwart, Judge.

Michael Rappise, alias Jimmy Stone, was convicted of employing a minor at an establishment for the purpose of relaying bets and wagers upon the running of horses and of conspiracy to violate the gambling laws, and he appeals.

Reversed.

Before McGEEHAN, Senior Judge, and DONGES and COLIE, JJ.

Albert S. Gross and Walter P. Back, both of Hackensack, for appellant.

John E. Selser and Walter G. Winne, County Prosecutor, both of Hackensack, for respondent.

COLIE, Judge.

Defendant was tried and convicted upon two indictments. The first charged him with employing George Amato, a minor, aged 15, at an establishment for the purpose of relaying bets and wagers upon the running of horses. The second charged that he conspired with John Doe and Richard Roe to violate the laws of the state against gambling. The verdict of the jury was ‘guilty in the manner and

65 A.2d 267

form as charged in both indictments.’ On this appeal the State concedes, as indeed it must, that the verdict of guilty and the judgment entered thereon, so far as the first indictment is concerned, cannot be sustained since there was no legal evidence to support it.

The indictment for conspiracy charges ‘that Michael Rappise, alias Jimmie Stone, John Doe and Richard Roe * * * did * * * unlawfully * * * conspire * * * to violate the gambling statutes of the State of New Jersey * * *’. The theory of the State's case against the defendant is that Amato was a co-conspirator with the defendant and the two unknown persons named in the indictment as John Doe and Richard Roe.

To support the charge in the indictments the State called George Amato who was on the premises when raided. He testified that he was employed by an unknown man to take care of the premises at 4 Outwater Lane in Garfield, New Jersey, to answer the telephone and relay messages placing bets on horse races to certain telephone numbers in Paterson. When confronted by the testimony of Amato that he was employed by an unknown man, the State pleaded surprise and called as a witness Stephen Toth, Jr., an Assistant Prosecutor. His testimony was that Amato said prior to the trial that the defendant Stone had hired him the day before the raid, that Stone gave him a key, told him how to operate the telephones, gave him a card with the two Paterson telephone numbers and that Amato admitted relaying bets to the Paterson numbers. Mr. Toth also testified to an admission by Amato to having received a call from Stone,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Albrecht v. State, No. 1122
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1992
    ...of the nature of the charge as precisely as possible to enable him to properly prepare his defense. State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266. However, in order to prevent a failure of justice, it is now generally accepted that if the name of a person necessary for complete description......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 21 Agosto 1978
    ...defendant guilty of the crime charged. The reality of the situation is no different from that of State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 (App.Div.1949), in which we reversed a conviction for gambling and conspiracy where the only evidence of guilt consisted of prior contradictory sta......
  • State v. Carbone, No. A--7
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 14 Octubre 1952
    ...Kammerer was not a co-conspirator with those charged in the indictment with conspiracy.' The case of State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 (App.Div.1949), is cited in support of the But the doctrine implicit in this reasoning is not countenanced by the common law; and the rule of t......
  • Edmund v. State, No. 94, Sept. Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 17 Abril 2007
    ...of the nature of the charge as precisely as possible to enable him to properly prepare his defense. State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 [(1949)]. However, in order to prevent a failure of justice, it is now generally accepted that if the name of a person necessary for complete de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Albrecht v. State, No. 1122
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1992
    ...of the nature of the charge as precisely as possible to enable him to properly prepare his defense. State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266. However, in order to prevent a failure of justice, it is now generally accepted that if the name of a person necessary for complete description......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 21 Agosto 1978
    ...defendant guilty of the crime charged. The reality of the situation is no different from that of State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 (App.Div.1949), in which we reversed a conviction for gambling and conspiracy where the only evidence of guilt consisted of prior contradictory sta......
  • State v. Carbone, No. A--7
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 14 Octubre 1952
    ...Kammerer was not a co-conspirator with those charged in the indictment with conspiracy.' The case of State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 (App.Div.1949), is cited in support of the But the doctrine implicit in this reasoning is not countenanced by the common law; and the rule of t......
  • Edmund v. State, No. 94, Sept. Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 17 Abril 2007
    ...of the nature of the charge as precisely as possible to enable him to properly prepare his defense. State v. Rappise, 3 N.J.Super. 30, 65 A.2d 266 [(1949)]. However, in order to prevent a failure of justice, it is now generally accepted that if the name of a person necessary for complete de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT