State v. Thompson
| Citation | 84 N.J.Super. 173,201 A.2d 384 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A--815,A--815 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles E. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Richard S. Miller, Passaic, for appellant (Walter E. Williams, Passaic, assigned counsel, attorney, Richard S. Miller, Passaic, on the brief).
Archibald Kreiger, Asst. Pros., for respondent (John G. Thevos, Pros., attorney).
Before Judges GOLDMANN, KILKENNY and COLLESTER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GOLDMANN, S.J.A.D.
This is an indigent defendant's appeal from County Court judgments jof conviction, entered after a jury verdict of guilty, for the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape (N.J.S. 2A:94--1, N.J.S.A.--indictment No. 148--62) and rape (N.J.S. 2A:138--1, N.J.S.A.--indictment No. 149--62).
The Passaic County grand jury returned five indictments against defendant. Indictment Nos. 146--62 and 150--62 do not concern us, for they were dismissed on motion of the prosecutor. Indictment No. 147--62 charged defendant with assault with intent to commit rape on one L, in Paterson, N.J., on March 25, 1962. Indictment No. 148--62 charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit rape on H, in Paterson on August 31, 1962. Finally, indictment No. 149--62 charged defendant with raping H on the latter occasion. Defendant pleaded not guilty to all three indictments and stood trial on the latter two. The jury found him guilty.
Pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:164--3, N.J.S.A. (section 1 of the Sex Offender Act, L. 1950, c. 207, as amended; N.J.S. 2A:164--3 et seq., N.J.S.A.) the county judge then referred him to the Menlo Park Diagnostic Center for examination. The Center rendered its report on January 3, 1963, stating that defendant's case fell within the purview of N.J.S. 2A:164--5, N.J.S.A. and recommending that he be committed to an institution, namely, Greystone Park. See N.J.S. 2A:164--6(b), N.J.S.A.
Defendant having retracted his not guilty plea to indictment No. 147--62 and entered a plea of guilty, the county judge again referred him to the Diagnostic Center which, in its January 15, 1963 report, found that this case also came within N.J.S. 2A:164--5, N.J.S.A. and recommended that defendant be committed to Greystone Park.
Defendant appeared for sentence on January 18, 1963. The two Diagnostic Center reports had been made available to defense counsel, who had discussed them with defendant and found them accurate. The trial judge, although stating that he was fully cognizant of the provisions of the Sex Offender Act and the two reports, imposed the following sentences: on indictment No. 147--62, a State Prison term of 10--12 years and a $1,000 fine; on indictment No. 148--62, a State Prison term of 5--7 years to run consecutively to the 147--62 sentence; and on indictment No. 149--62, a further State Prison term of 7--10 years to run consecutively to those imposed on Nos. 147--62 and 148--62.
Defendant's appeal challenges the propriety of the convictions on four grounds: (1) the prosecutor's reference on summation to defendant's prior criminal record was prejudicial and constituted plain error; (2) the trial court committed error in admitting defendant's confession into evidence; (3) it erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case; and (4) the trial judge completely ignored the recommendations of the Diagnostic Center. The first point is raised by assigned counsel; the remaining three have been presented by him at defendant's specific request and direction.
(The court here found the first three grounds without merit.)
We come, then, to defendant's final argument that the trial court ignored the Diagnostic Center recommendations in imposing the consecutive State Prison sentences. We agree.
Defendant's criminal record is characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive behavior. See N.J.S. 2A:164--5, N.J.S.A. The Diagnostic Center's report after defendant's first examination was that 'In the sexual area he seems preoccupied and he does not seem able to control his urges and impulses when stimulated in that direction.' The Center evaluated defendant as The medical staff considered him as coming under the Sex Offender Act and recommended institutionalization at Greystone Park.
The second examination at the Diagnostic Center resulted in a report that defendant's conflicts in the sexual area seem very severe. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hampton
...251 A.2d 141 (App.Div.1969), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. State v. Horne, 56 N.J. 372, 267 A.2d 1 (1970); State v. Thompson, 84 N.J.Super. 173, 201 A.2d 384 (App.Div.1964). III. For the reasons expressed the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed as modified, and the cause is rem......
-
State v. Horne
...in the report of the Diagnostic Center are crucial to the sentencing process under the Sex Offender Act. See State v. Thompson, 84 N.J.Super. 173, 177, 201 A.2d 384 (App.Div.1964). Nor is there any question that, even if it be accepted as not more burdensome, a sentence under the Sex Offend......
-
State v. Mickschutz
... ... We disagree ... A trial court has no right to ignore the Certer's finding that a defendant falls within the purview of the act and sentence him as an ordinary criminal. State v. Thompson, 84 N.J.Super. 173, 177, 201 A.2d 384 (App.Div.1964). But the court does have the right to commit the defendant under 6(b) even though the Center recommends that the defendant be placed on probation under 6(a). We need not decide whether a court has the power to place a defendant on probation ... ...
-
State v. Andrews
...not fixed, although the potential maximum detention is limited by the statute to the maximum for the crime. State v. Thompson, 84 N.J.Super. 173, 177, 201 A.2d 384 (App.Div.1964); State v. Schreffler, 63 N.J.Super. 148, 152, 164 A.2d 192 (App.Div.1960). This view of the statutory concept pr......