State v. Simon, 46.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 46.,46. |
| Parties | STATE v. SIMON et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Aaron L. Simon, Irving Simon, William Conlon, Charles Decker, and Albert Durgett were convicted for conspiracy to commit embracery, and they bring error to review a judgment (113 N. J. Law, 521, 174 A. 867) affirming the conviction.
Affirmed.
James D. Carpenter, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Merritt Lane, of Newark, Peter J. McGinnis, of Paterson, Harry H. Weinberger, of Newark, and John E. Selser, of Hackensack, for plaintiffs in error.
The judgment under review should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. However, we reserve opinion upon the question whether, in order to lay the foundation for impeaching a witness by a written statement, the writing containing such statement must be produced and shown, and also upon the intimation that such a paper, when in the possession of a party, need not be produced upon timely notice but only when subpoenaed. In the instant case there had been no notice to produce. The paper was in the possession of the Special Attorney General, but was not in the courtroom and, so far as appears, was not in the vicinity of the courtroom. A party is not obliged to anticipate the need for, and to have in court, a paper of the character mentioned without prior notice to produce. As indicated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the questions asked of the witness were not material toward a contradiction because, however answered, they would not constitute a contradiction of the testimony already given by the witness. So far as the record indicates, the cross-examining counsel did not have information regarding the contents of the papers and was making a flare on the chance that the answers might contain something helpful to defendants. The practice by which a foundation is laid for the contradiction of a witness does not sustain a "fishing" expedition by way of cross-examination. No harm is shown to have come to the defendants by reason of the court's rulings.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices LLOYD, CASE, DONGES, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, and WELLS— 11.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Driver
... ... Page 287 ... ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ... SEPTEMBER 8 RECORDING ... Some questions have been raised as to the admissibility in general of sound recordings. In the early case of State v. Simon, 113 N.J.L. 521, 174 A. 867 (Sup.Ct.1934), affirmed 115 N.J.L. 207, 178 A. 728 (E. & A.1935), a phonograph record of a conversation with the State's principal witness, offered for purposes of impeachment, was rejected, one reason being that there can be no cross-examination of the record to ... ...
-
State v. Oats, A--693
... ... We come then to the first of the meritorious questions. The indictment for the offense of conspiracy did not in this case merge into the indictment for the substantive offense. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 643, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1945); State v. Simon, 113 N.J.L. 521, 525, 174 A. 867 (Sup.Ct.1934), affirmed 115 N.J.L. 207, 178 A. 728 (E. & A.1935); Johnson v. State, 29 N.J.L. 453 (E. & A.1861); ... 37 A.L.R. 778; 75 A.L.R. 1411. The two offenses are separate and distinct, State v. Chevencek, 127 N.J.L. 476, 23 A.2d 176 (Sup.Ct.1941), and, we ... ...
-
State v. Sudol
... ... State v. Costa, 11 N.J. 239, 248, 94 A.2d 303 (1953); State v. Simon, 113 N.J.L. 521, 529, 174 A. 867 (Sup.Ct.1934) ... , affirmed 115 N.J.L. 207, 178 A. 728 (E. & A.1935); State v. Dougherty, 86 N.J.L. 525, 539, 542, 543, 93 A. 98 (Sup.Ct.1915); Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 217, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196, 201 (1946); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 ... ...
-
State v. Pullen
...unduly waste the Court's time. See, State v. Reed, 1872, 60 Me. 550, 553; Wallace v. State, 1965, Del., 211 A.2d 845; State v. Simon, 1935, 115 N.J.L. 207, 178 A. 728. Furthermore, the cross-examining attorney made no proffer to the Court below of the expected answer to his question and the......