State v. Shiren
| Decision Date | 01 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A--396,A--396 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHIREN. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Paul T. Huckin, Englewood, argued the cause for the respondent (Francis V. D. Lloyd, Hackensack, attorney).
George F. Losche, Hackensack, argued the cause for the defendant-appellant (David A. Gelber, Hackensack, attorney).
Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
EASTWOOD, J.A.D.
Defendant, Samuel Shiren, appeals from convictions on two indictments charging him with (1) assault and battery and (2) death by reckless driving of an automobile.
Shiren, a construction engineer, was supervising a project in River Edge, New Jersey. On the morning of June 24, 1950, he complained of a toothache. During the middle of the morning, at the suggestion of a labor foreman on the project and in an effort to alleviate the pain, he got a pint bottle of whiskey, took a drink, held it in his mouth for a short time and then spat it out. At noon, defendant and the labor foreman and some workmen from the project went to a nearby bar and grill for lunch where they each had two glasses of beer with their lunch. They returned to the job at approximately 12:40. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Shiren, not feeling well, at the suggestion of the foreman left the job. Proceeding along Route 4 in his automobile he allegedly felt faint, blacked out completely and awakened to see bicycles and boys 'and that was the end of it.' As a result of the accident, Donald Johnson was killed and Richard Harris was injured.
The State tried its case on the theory that the defendant was intoxicated. Numerous State's witnesses testified that in their opinion Shiren was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Dr. Eisenstein, the examining physician, was not called by the State, but testified as a witness for the defense that he examined defendant at police headquarters immediately after the accident and found defendant sober. The testimony respecting defendant's sobriety was conflicting and the court properly submitted that issue to the jury.
By way of defense, the defendant contended that he was ill, not intoxicated, and that his illness caused him to 'black out.' In support thereof, the defendant offered Dr. Abraham S. Effron, a qualified neurologist and psychiatrist, who testified that he examined Shiren on October 20, 1950 and November 4, 1950, for treatment of his condition; that he obtained a history from him and performed an electro-encephalogram on him. An electro-encephalogram, the doctor explained, discloses any abnormalities in brain wave pattern and ordinarily will reveal whether one has suffered a stroke depending upon the part of the brain involved. The court, over objection, refused to permit Dr. Effron to testify as to the results of the electro-encephalogram, particularly with respect to the existence of a disease of the brain at the time of the accident. The defendant contends that this action of the trial court was erroneous and that it improperly and prejudicially prevented the defendant from proving whether his condition was due to brain damage.
The defendant argues that (1) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and (2) there was error in excluding the testimony of the injury to defendant's brain and the effect thereof.
Let us consider the grounds of appeal in the inverse order of their presentation.
As a general proposition it may be said that any legally competent evidence which, when taken alone or in connection with other evidence, affords reasonable inferences upon the matter in issue, tends to prove or disprove a material issue or to defeat the rights asserted by one or the other of the parties, and sheds any light upon or touches the issues in such a way as to enable the jury to draw a logical inference with respect to the principal fact in issue, is relevant and admissible. 20 Am.Jur., sec. 247, pp. 240, 241. Testimony was adduced which indicated that defendant, prior to the accident, was suffering from high blood pressure. Evidence tending to show the effect, or possible effect, of that disease upon the defendant at the time of the accident would, where not excluded for remoteness or conjecture, have been admissible to explain his condition or to support his allegation of having 'blacked out.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conterno
...medical aid is needed urgently; as in case of insulin shock, concussion of the brain from trauma, and the like. (Cf. State v. Shiren, 1951, 15 N.J.Super. 440, 83 A.2d 620, electro-encephalogram, to prove that 'blackout' was not due to intoxication.) Both for the protection of the citizen wh......
-
Grigsby v. State
...125 Va. 758, 99 S.E. 562, 4 A.L.R. 1509 (1919). See also, State v. Stokes, 250 La. 277, 195 So.2d 267 (1967); State v. Shiren, 15 N.J.Super. 440, 83 A.2d 620 (1951), aff'd. 9 N.J. 445, 88 A.2d 601 (1952); Haley v. State, 84 Tex.Cr. 629, 209 S.W. 675, 3 A.L.R. 779 (1919). It is enough that t......
-
Kreis v. Owens
...a condition at a Prior or subsequent time is evidential.' (Emphasis his.) 2 Wigmore, Evidence, § 225 (1940). State v. Shiren, 15 N.J.Super. 440, 83 A.2d 620, 622 (App.Div.1951), supplies an illustration. The defendant was indicted for causing death by the reckless driving of an automobile. ......
-
State v. Shiren, A--118
...to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which on October 1, 1951, reversed the judgments of conviction, State v. Shiren, 15 N.J.Super. 440, 83 A.2d 620 (App.Div. 1951). The State then petitioned this court for certification, which was allowed. State v. Shiren, 8 N.J. 414, 86 A.2d 45 The ......