State v. Samurine
| Decision Date | 16 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A--126,A--126 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold Jardine SAMURINE and Gertrude Samurine, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Cuddie E. Davidson, Jr., Westfield, argued the cause for the State (H. Russell Morss, Jr., Prosecutor of Union County, and Calvin J. Hurd, Asst. Prosecutor, Elizabeth, attorneys).
Albert G. Besser, Newark, argued the cause for respondents.
The defendants, Harold and Gertrude Samurine, Were convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2A:111--1. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions and directed judgments of acquittal be entered in favor of both defendants. The matter comes before us on our granting the State's petition for certification. 25 N.J. 539, 138 A.2d 79.
At the trial one Metrick was the principal witness for the State. On the first day, during direct examination, he mentioned that Harold Samurine had 'a criminal record.' Defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial, which was denied. On the following day, on cross-examination, Metrick again referred to Samurine's 'criminal past.' At the conclusion of the case the trial judge admonished the jury to disregard any evidence relating to a 'criminal record,' reminding them that such testimony had been stricken.
The Appellate Division found that the two references by the State's witness to prior criminal activity on the part of Harold Samurine were so prejudicial that even striking them from the record and giving cautionary instructions to the jury could not alleviate their possible prejudicial influence. It concluded the instructions only served to refresh the jurors' memories as to what had been said by Metrick.
We are wholeheartedly in accord with the Appellate Division's conclusions in this respect. Under the circumstances of this case, normally a reversal and remand would have ensued, but the Appellate Division went further and concluded the State's case was so deficient on the essential elements of the offense charged that judgments of acquittal should be entered instead of the cause being remanded.
We cannot agree. Without emphasizing in detail the weaknesses of the State's case, it nevertheless, in our opinion, was sufficient to raise questions to be decided by a jury and should have been remanded for a new trial.
Moreover, in its supplemental brief on reargument, the State, in answer to the question ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. James
...N.J. 567, 546 A.2d 497 (1988); State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 180, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), rev'd on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, 142 A.2d 612 (1958)). The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court's ruling that the victim's identification of defendant should be excluded from......
-
State v. Johnson
...340, 273 A.2d 1 (1971); State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 181--182, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), rev'd on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, 142 A.2d 612 (1958). The aforementioned was the most serious error at trial; however, additional factors compounded the prejudice. The trial judge, in ex......
-
State v. Moffa
...185 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1936). In State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 178, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), reversed on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, 142 A.2d 612 (1958), it was stated the defense is entitled at trial to have the grand jury testimony of witnesses, for the purpose of cross-examinatio......
-
State v. Brewer
... ... See State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360, 251 A.2d 99 (1969). Nor do we find the information thus imparted to the jury, on the record before us, to have ... prejudiced defendant in any meaningful way. State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 273 A.2d (1971). Defendant's reliance on State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), rev'd on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, 99 A.2d 365 (1958), thus is misplaced ... Defendant contends that he was prejudiced by the removal of a juror at the conclusion of the trial. The juror was said to have some acquaintance with the ... ...