State v. Verona
| Decision Date | 17 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 24.,24. |
| Parties | STATE v. VERONA. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error to Supreme Court.
John Verona was convicted of larceny and receiving the same goods knowing them to have been feloniously stolen, and on his writ of error to the Supreme Court his conviction was affirmed, and he brings error. Modified and affirmed.
William R. Wilson, of Elizabeth, for plaintiff in error.
Walter L. Hetfield, Jr., Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Plainfield, for the State.
WALKER, Ch. John Verona, the plaintiff in error, was indicted at the October term, 1917, of the Union oyer and terminer, for larceny and receiving. The case was sent to the quarter sessions. The charge in the first count of the indictment is that on July 30, 1917, he did steal from the Central Railroad of New Jersey four brass journals, of the weight of 50 pounds and of the value of $15. The second count charges that on the same day he unlawfully did receive and have the said four brass journals, well knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away.
Verona was tried, and was convicted of larceny and receiving as charged in the indictment, and was sentenced to the state prison for a minimum of two and a maximum of seven years at hard labor, and to pay the costs of prosecution.
The defendant sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was affirmed, and the judgment entered thereon in the Supreme Court has been removed by writ of error into this court. The entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial of the defendant was returned into the Supreme Court, and has been brought up here.
On behalf of the defendant, who is plaintiff in error, counsel filed in the Supreme Court 16 assignments of error, and 16 causes for reversal under the statute. These assignments and causes are identical, and the same identical assignments and causes were filed in this court. This is an improper method of assigning errors and causes for reversal on the removal of a judgment of the Supreme Court into this court, when the Supreme Court sat as a court of review on appeal or on certiorari, etc. A proper assignment would be that the Supreme Court erred in giving judgment for the defendant in error, instead of for the plaintiff in error, or that it so erred for one or more of the assigments of error and causes for reversal (grounds of appeal in sundry civil cases; reasons in certiorari cases) filed in the Supreme Court and brought up with the record. Even if the grounds taken in the Supreme Court were not mentioned, being in the record reviewed there, they would be arguable here under the objection that the Supreme Court erred in giving judgment against plaintiff in error. Of course, if an appeal were taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, when that tribunal was the court of first instance, then all of the grounds of appeal relied upon would have to be taken to the proceedings in that court; but when first taken to the judgment of the Supreme Court as a court of review (on appeal or on certiorari, etc.), the only question is: Did that court err for one or more of the reasons assigned there?
This case was submitted on briefs, and it is argued in the brief for the plaintiff in error that he suffered manifest wrong and injury in the sentence of the court.
It will be recalled that the first count of the indictment charged larceny under the value of $20. This is a misdemeanor. Crimes Act (Comp. Stat. p. 1792) § 158. And the second count charged receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, which is also a misdemeanor. Id. § 166. Neither of these sections fixes the penalty for the offense in each denounced, and therefore the penalty is that provided by Id. § 218, which declares that any person found guilty of a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both.
As already remarked, the conviction of the defendant was for larceny and receiving as charged against him, and the sentence of the court was that he be imprisoned for a minimum term of two and a maximum of seven years, with the costs of prosecution, and to stand committed until the costs were paid. The two counts in the indictment are repugnant, because a person cannot be guilty of stealing certain property and also of receiving that same property from another, who stole it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roller
...count containing substantially the same charge. Cf. State v. Friedman, 98 N.J.L. 577, 120 A. 8, 9 (E. & A. 1923); State v. Verona, 93 N.J.L. 389, 392, 108 A. 250 (E. & A. 1919); State v. Bullock, 4 N.J.Misc. 195, 198, 132 A. 198 (Sup.Ct.1926), affirmed 103 N.J.L. 204, 134 A. 919 (E. & A. 19......
-
State v. La Fera
...repugnant charges arising out of the same affair may be joined, as for example, larceny and receiving stolen goods. State v. Verona, 93 N.J.L. 389, 108 A. 250 (E. & A.1919); State v. Braunstein, 84 N.J.L. 765, 87 A. 335 (E. & A.1913). In such cases the State may not be required to elect eit......
-
State v. Fioravanti
...to severity of authorized punishment, so long as the evidence justifies the verdict of guilty as to that count. State v. Verona, 93 N.J.L. 389, 392, 108 A. 250 (E. & A.1919); State v. Friedman, 98 N.J.L. 577, 120 A. 8, 9 (E. & A.1923); State v. Shelbrick, supra, 33 N.J.Super., at p. 10, 109......
-
State v. Czarnicki
...Reeves v. Jones, 74 N.J.L. 330, 66 A. 113; Shangnuole v. Ohl, supra; Smith v. Board of Excise of Elizabeth, 46 N.J.L. 312; State v. Verona, 93 N.J.L. 389, 108 A. 250; State v. Schlosser, 85 N.J.L. 165, 89 A. 522, affirmed 86 N.J.L. 374, 91 A. 1071. Ordinarily, the writ of certiorari evokes ......