State v. Schrier, A--105
| Decision Date | 26 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A--105,A--105 |
| Citation | 30 N.J. 241,152 A.2d 578 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William Joseph SCHRIER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Bernard Hellring, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (Leonard Lieberman, Newark, on the brief).
John F. Crane, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (Brendan T. Byrne, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, Newark, attorney; Martin J. Loftus, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division from the judgment of the Essex County Court entered pursuant to its opinion in State v. Schrier, 51 N.J.Super. 81, 143 A.2d 268 (1958); we certified the matter on our own motion. See R.R. 1:10--1(a).
On October 31, 1957 a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of the City of Newark charging that the defendant did 'unlawfully sell a hypodermic needle to one Detective Carter Saunders' in violation of N.J.S. 2A:170-77.3, N.J.S.A. The defendant appeared, was represented by counsel, and entered a plea of Non vult. On November 18, 1957 the defendant was adjudged guilty on his plea, was fined $1,000 which he paid, and received a suspended jail sentence of 90 days. On November 27, 1957 the defendant, appearing by other counsel, applied in the municipal court to withdraw his plea, but his application was denied. Immediately thereafter he applied in the municipal court to have his sentence reduced, but this application was also denied. He appealed to the County Court from the judgment which adjudged him guilty and sentenced him and thereafter appealed from the order which refused to grant him leave to withdraw his plea of Non vult. The County Court affirmed the denial of his application for leave to withdraw his plea, rejected his attack on the complaint as failing to allege any offense, and denied his request for a trial De novo on the issue of guilt.
Although the record before us discloses that the defendant applied in the municipal court for leave to withdraw his plea it contains no affidavits or other materials indicating what, if anything, was submitted in the municipal court to support his application. The defendant does not now assert that he did not make the sale referred to in the complaint nor does he now deny that his plea was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the charge against him. See R.R. 8:4--3; R.R. 3:5--2. Instead he refers vaguely to the defense of entrapment, although there is nothing in the record which suggests a case of entrapment in its true legal sense (State v. Dougherty, 86 N.J.L. 525, 532, 93 A. 98 (Sup.Ct.1915), reversed 88 N.J.L. 209, 96 A. 56, L.R.A. 1916C, 991 (E. & A.1915); State v. Rosenberg, 37 N.J.Super. 197, 204, 117 A.2d 168 (App.Div.1955), certification denied 20 N.J. 303, 119 A.2d 789 (1956)), and he attacks the complaint on the ground that it does not charge any offense. We assume that the attack on the complaint on the stated ground is now available to the defendant (Waters v. Court of Special Sessions, 132 N.J.L. 44, 45, 38 A.2d 577 (Sup.Ct.1944); cf. State v. Hintenberger, 41 N.J.Super. 597, 605, 125 A.2d 735 (App.Div.1956), certification denied 23 N.J. 57, 127 A.2d 227 (1956); State v. Terwilliger, 49 N.J.Super. 149, 154, 139 A.2d 454 (App.Div.1958)) but find it to be without foundation.
The statute (N.J.S. 2A:170--77.3, N.J.S.A.) provides that no person shall, without prescription, sell a hypodermic needle to any person other than '* * * a hospital, sanitarium, clinical laboratory or any other medical institution or a State or governmental agency, or a regular dealer in medical, dental or surgical supplies * * *.' The defendant contends that the person to whom he sold the hypodermic needle 'was a law enforcement officer and consequently a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Gibson
...N.J.P.L. 1955, c. 277 which itself enacted new provisions aimed at the same evil, N.J.S.A. 2A:170-77.3 to 77.7. And see State v. Schrier, 30 N.J. 241, 152 A.2d 578 (1959), and State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 181 A.2d 761 (1962), cert. den. 374 U.S. 835, 83 S.Ct. 1879, 10 L.Ed.2d 1055. This Act......
-
State v. Deutsch
...which requires correction through vacation of the conviction and the granting of a new trial. See R.R. 3:7--10(a); State v. Schrier, 30 N.J. 241, 243, 152 A.2d 578 (1959); State v. Gailes, supra, 64 N.J.Super., at p. 241, 165 A.2d at p. 818; State v. Torzillo, 61 N.J.Super. 253, 260, 160 A.......
-
State v. Mull
...and Error, § 230, p. 987.' In State v. Nicastro, supra, and State v. Schrier, 51 N.J.Super. 81, 143 A.2d 268 (1958), modified 30 N.J. 241, 152 A.2d 578 (1959), the Essex County Court recently took the position that De novo review of the issue of guilt is impermissible where the conviction i......
-
State v. Daniels
...Goodlet v. Goodman, 34 N.J. 358, 372, 169 A.2d 140 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 855, 82 S.Ct. 92, 7 L.Ed.2d 52 (1961); State v. Schrier, 30 N.J. 241, 152 A.2d 578 (1959); State v. Magonia, 25 N.J. 95, 101, 135 A.2d 184 (1957); State v. Gailes, 64 N.J.Super. 232, 240--241, 165 A.2d 814 (App......