State v. Royal
| Decision Date | 12 July 1971 |
| Citation | 115 N.J.Super. 439,280 A.2d 201 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stanley ROYAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Susan T. Sinins, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
David S. Baime, Asst. Prosecutor, for respondent, (Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney, William F. Bolan, Jr., Millburn, on the brief).
Before Judges LEWIS, MATTHEWS and MINTZ.
Defendant was convicted of possessing heroin, in violation of N.J.S.A. 24:18--4. He was sentenced to State Prison, Trenton, for a term of three to five years and fined $25. The arguments advanced on appeal are that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case. After hearing argument, we remanded the matter to the Essex County Court at the request of the State for the taking of additional testimony with respect to the information in the possession of the police at the time they went to the premises in question and thereafter arrested defendant. Additional testimony was taken and supplemental briefs filed.'
The facts surrounding the arrest of defendant are as follows: Sergeant Bimbo of the Narcotics Squad of the Newark Police testified that he was on duty on the date in question and that he received an anonymous telephone call informing him that narcotics were being used at premises known as 51 Howard Street, Newark. Since there were no members of the narcotics squad immediately available, the sergeant transmitted the contents of the anonymous call to regular patrol car dispatcher who directed two cars to the address to investigate. When the two cars arrived at the premises, two officers went to the front of the house and two to the side to observe the rear exit and alley. One of the officers knocked on the front door of No. 51 and, in response to a question, informed the occupant that it was the police. When the front door was opened by an individual named Christian, two or three individuals ran out of the back of the house and fled over a fence in the rear yard. Defendant, who was partially clad, ran through the front hallway and upstairs. One of the patrolmen observing defendant chased him up the stairs into a bedroom, and the officer discovered glassine bags of heroin which defendant was apparently trying to destroy. Defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted.
D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...identity and no other evidence is at hand to verify his reliability. [Williams, supra at 357, 403 A.2d 28] In State v. Royal, 115 N.J.Super. 439, 280 A.2d 201 (App.Div.1971), the police received a call from an anonymous informant who stated that narcotics were being used at a specific addre......
-
State v. McNair
...666, 13 Cal.Rptr. 22, 24--26 (1961); State v. Boswell, 115 N.J.Super. 253, 279 A.2d 125 (App.Div.1971); State v. Royal, 115 N.J.Super. 439, 280 A.2d 201 (App.Div.1971). In Vegazo it was noted that when a person approached by an officer 'engages in furtive conduct' the officer may well be ju......
-
State v. Rice
...the defendants" when they reacted to the presence of police at the door, constituted probable cause. Relying on State v. Royal, 115 N.J.Super. 439, 280 A.2d 201 (App.Div.1971), certif. denied, 59 N.J. 294, 281 A.2d 807 (1971), and State v. Boswell, 115 N.J.Super. 253, 279 A.2d 125 (App.Div.......
-
State v. Galvin
...was corroborated by the girl who opened the second-floor apartment door and whom Kohrherr knew. Cf. State v. Royal, 115 N.J.Super. 439, 441, 280 A.2d 201 (App.Div.1971). She affirmed that while not presently there, Galvin and Rocchetti's sister did in fact live in that apartment. Moreover, ......