State v. Rosa
| Citation | 71 N.J.L. 316,58 A. 1010 |
| Parties | STATE v. ROSA. |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1904 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
(Syllabus by the Court)
Error to Court of Oyer and Terminer, Bergen County.
Jerry Rosa was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.
Ernest Koester, Pros. of Pleas, for the State.
Peter W. Stagg, for defendant.
On the night of February 28, 1904, two Italians, known by the names of "Demetrio" and "Benedetto," were shot and killed in Lodi, Bergen county. At the last April term of the Bergen oyer defendant, Rosa, was convicted of murder in the first degree for the killing of Demetrio. At the trial the testimony produced on behalf of the state tended to prove that about 6 o'clock in the evening of February 28th some quarrelsome words had passed between the defendant and Benedetto in the house where Benedetto and Demetrio hoarded; that between 8 and 9 o'clock the defendant and another Italian, known as "Frank," had called at the same house, inquiring for Demetrio and Benedetto, but had not found them; and that between 9 and 10 o'clock the defendant and Frank were in the defendant's boarding house, where the defendant was declaring bis purpose to go out and find the other two men, while Frank was remonstrating with him. The shooting took place about 11 o'clock, near Demetrio's boarding house. An important witness to the scene between Frank and the defendant at the latter's boarding house was Umberto Fornorucci, and on direct examination for the state he testified that the defendant then asked Frank, "Have you got a ( his hand in the position of a man grasping a revolver and moving the forefinger as if pulling the trigger)?" to which Frank replied, "No, I don't have anything." This question thus put by word and gesture was, of course, very significant respecting the intention of the defendant, but was not observed by either of the two other witnesses who were present at the time. The record shows that before the trial now under review the defendant had been on trial for murder (presumably for the murder of Benedetto), and the witness Umberto on his present cross-examination testified that he was a witness on the previous trial, but then forgot to tell about this motion of the defendant's finger, adding, in response to a question put by the court, that he was not questioned about it. In charging the jury on this subject the learned justice instructed them as follows: "It is needless to say that his omission to mention this circumstance when testifying on a former occasion, no question having been asked that would elicit the information, ought not to be considered as affecting his credibility." The defendant having caused the entire record of the proceedings to be returned with his writ of error, pursuant to section 130 of the Criminal Procedure act (P. L. 1898, p. 915), complains of the foregoing instruction as having done him manifest wrong and injury.
We think this complaint is well founded. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jutras
...under cross-examination was a self-confessed accomplice of the respondent in the full sense of that term. State v. Rosa, 1904, 71 N.J.L. 316, at page 318, 58 A. 1010, at page 1011, was a trial for murder and the following excerpts set forth the issue and the court 'One of the state's witnes......
-
State v. Williams
...would normally have been made and which is presently testified to may be considered a prior inconsistent statement. State v. Rosa, 71 N.J.L. 316 (58 A. 1010) (E. & A. 1904); Esderts v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 76 Ill.App.2d 210, 222 N.E.2d 117 (App.Ct.1966), cert. den. 386 U.S......
-
State v. Provet
...would normally have been made and which is presently testified to may be considered a prior inconsistent statement. State v. Rosa, 71 N.J.L. 316, 58 A. 1010 (E. & A. 1904); Esderts v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 76 Ill.App.2d 210, 222 N.E.2d 117 (App.Ct.1966), cert. den.386 U.S. ......
-
State v. Falconetti
...his Treatise on Evidence, (3d ed.), vol. III, sec. 967, and further by the courts of this State. In the case of State v. Rosa, 71 N.J.L. 316, 319, 58 A. 1010, 1011 (E. & A. 1904), the accusation and arrest of a witness on charges involved in the crime under question was permitted to be show......