State v. Shupe
| Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 4.,4. |
| Citation | 97 A. 271,88 N.J.Law 610 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHUPE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
William P. Shupe was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape (86 N. J. Law, 410, 92 Atl. 53), and brings error. Affirmed.
William D. Wolfs Keil, of Elizabeth, for plaintiff in error. Alfred A. Stein, prosecutor of the pleas, of Elizabeth, for the State.
WALKER, Ch. The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of the county of Union for an assault with intent to commit rape in that county, and was convicted by a traverse jury. He brought error to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed, and now brings error to this court.
We agree with the soundness of the views expressed by the Supreme Court in its opinion affirming the judgment.
Two alleged errors are urged upon us which appear not to have been argued in the court below.
The questions considered in the Supreme Court were three, namely: (1) The trial court's refusal to sustain a challenge to the array of jurors; (2) that the judge erroneously permitted the prosecuting witness to testify that on her return home she told her mother what had happened; and (3) that if the defendant were found guilty by the jury's verdict he could not thereafter be tried in Essex county (there being proof tending to show that the crime charged occurred in Essex and not in Union).
The Supreme Court's opinion concludes with a discussion of the third question, which, it said, is "the only other ground of reversal which is argued by counsel," and nothing has been presented to this court showing that any questions, other than the three, were presented to and argued in the Supreme Court. The case was submitted here on briefs, and counsel for the plaintiff in error urges two reasons, other than those presented to the Supreme Court, why the judgment of that tribunal should be reversed, as follows: (1) The admission in evidence of the minutes of the court of quarter sessions showing a plea of non vult made by the defendant (who afterwards retracted it and pleaded not guilty); and (2) the charge of the court that the jury should be governed by the preponderance of evidence; but where all things are equal, then the preponderance goes to the side producing the greater number of witnesses, and that ought to carry the verdict with it.
Counsel for the state contends that the assignments of error upon which the two points argued here are raised were not argued in the Supreme Court, and were therefore waived and abandoned. As already stated, there is nothing presented to us which shows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. West
...such appeal, and raising for the first time a question that was not raised in the court below (citing State v. Shupe, 88 N.J.L. 610 . In the Shupe case it is held "The doctrine that a party need not be heard as to a question which could have been, but was not, raised in an intermediate cour......
-
State v. Czarnicki
...on the face of the record or one involving jurisdiction or public policy. Kluczek v. State, 115 N.J.L. 105, 178 A. 632; State v. Shupe, 88 N.J.L. 610, 97 A. 271; Schmid v. Law, 83 N.J.L. 635, 87 A. 452; Mechler v. Fialk, 82 N.J.L. 273, 82 A. 330, affirmed 84 N.J.L. 406, 86 A. 401; Ryer v. T......
-
State v. Gambutti, A--291
...State v. Rodesky, 86 N.J.L. 220, 90 A. 1099 (E. & A.1914); State v. Shupe, 86 N.J.L. 410, 92 A. 53 (Sup.Ct.1914); affirmed 88 N.J.L. 610, 97 A. 271 (E. & A.1916); State v. Ivins, 36 N.J.L. 233 (Sup.Ct.1873); 4 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.), § 1135. Admissibility of the hearsay is justified o......
-
Balmforth v. McMurray
...A.2d 40 (Cty.Ct.1951). A jurisdictional defense need not be set up in the pleadings. Bocchino v. Best Foods, supra; State v. Shupe, 88 N.J.L. 610, 97 A. 271 (E. & A.1916). In Victor Chemical Works v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill. 11, 113 N.E. 173, 179 (Sup.Ct.1916), the court held that casual ......