State v. Schuyler
| Decision Date | 09 August 1907 |
| Citation | 75 N.J.L. 487,68 A. 56 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCHUYLER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Oyer and Terminer, Hunterdon County.
John E. Schuyler was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error. Affirmed.
H. Burdette Herr, for plaintiff in error. George H. Large, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted, in the Hunterdon oyer, of murder in the first degree in the felonious killing of one Manning Riley. Having sued out this writ of error, he assigns, as reasons for the reversal of that conviction: First, that the trial court erroneously admitted, against his objection, evidence offered, on the part of the state, to show that an altercation between him and the deceased had taken place some 10 or 11 years before the occurrence of the homicide; and, second, that the trial court, in the charge to the jury, in commenting upon the evidence, called their attention to the fact that the proofs indicated that there was "blood upon the hands of the defendant, and that there was no blood, as far as appears, upon the hands of any one else."
It is contended upon behalf of the plaintiff in error that the evidence showing an altercation between himself and the deceased was improperly admitted because the occurrence was too remote to have any bearing upon the relation of the parties at the time of the homicide. The case is here on strict bill of exceptions, and we have nothing before us except the admitted questions and answers. So far as the record discloses anything to the contrary, it may well be that the altercation testified to aroused in the breasts of the participants a spirit of animosity toward each other which remained down to the time of the homicide. In the case of Jeffords v. People, 5 Parker, Cr. R. 522, cited with approval in People v. Decker, 157 N. Y. 193, 51 N. E. 1018, the court, in dealing with a contention like that now under consideration, declared it to be no objection to such evidence that a period of years had expired since the occurrence took place, saying: The logic of this deliverance is unanswerable, and underlies the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Engel
...51 N.J. 224, 228-229, 238 A.2d 682 (1968); State v. Lederman, 112 N.J.L. 366, 372, 170 A. 652 (E. & A.1934); State v. Schuyler, 75 N.J.L. 487, 488, 68 A. 56 (E. & A.1907); State v. Donohue, 2 N.J. 381, 388, 67 A.2d 152 (1949); State v. Slobodian, 120 N.J.Super. 68, 75, 293 A.2d 399 (App.Div......
-
State v. Atkins
...and State v. Slocum, 130 N.J.Super. 358, 363, 327 A.2d 244 (App.Div.1974). In his dissent Brother Allcorn adds State v. Schuyler, 75 N.J.L. 487, 488, 68 A. 56 (E. & A. 1907), and State v. Donohue, supra, 2 N.J. at 388, 67 A.2d 152, to support the State's In our view, however, these cases ar......
-
State v. Ramseur
...78 N.J. 454, 461, 396 A.2d 1122 (1979). The temporal remoteness of a past wrong affects its probative value. See State v. Schuyler, 75 N.J.L. 487, 488, 68 A. 56 (E. & A.1907). If the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the threat of prejudice, the evidence should be excluded un......
-
Burgess v. State
...51 N.J. 224, 228-229, 238 A.2d 682 (1968); State v. Lederman, 112 N.J.L. 366, 372, 170 A. 652 (E. & A.1934); State v. Schuyler, 75 N.J.L. 487, 488, 68 A. 56 (E. & A.1907); State v. Donohue, 2 N.J. 381, 388, 67 A.2d 152 (1949); State v. Slobodian, 120 N.J.Super. 68, 75, 293 A.2d 399 (App. Di......