State v. Villano
| Decision Date | 07 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 86.,86. |
| Citation | 142 A. 643 |
| Parties | STATE v. VILLANO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
George Villano was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error. Judgment affirmed.
See, also, 140 A. 11.
Argued January term, 1928, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.
J. Victor D'Aloia, of Newark, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph L. Smith, of Newark, for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the Essex court of oyer and terminer, and appeals from the judgment entered thereon assigning two grounds for reversal.
The first of these is that the court erred in receiving in evidence the testimony of one John Smith, a character witness offered by the state; and the second that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence.
As to the first point the matter is presented in this wise: The defendant called a witness Rufalo as a character witness. He was asked if he knew the reputation of the defendant for telling the truth and being a law-abiding citizen. He answered, "Yes." He was then asked whether it was good or bad, to which question there was no answer. The witness was then cross-examined, and in the course of this cross-examination the witness said that everybody he talked to knew it was always in the defendant's favor. Finally the court asked, "Did you ever hear anybody say anything about his truth or law-abiding qualities?" to which the witness answered, "No." That this examination was adopted by defendant's counsel is evidenced by the fact that, the court having at the conclusion of the testimony said it would allow the question previously asked by defendant's counsel, the question itself was not pressed, counsel evidently being satisfied with the answers already given.
When the witness Smith was called, he was asked the question:
"Do you know his (defendant's) reputation for recklessness in driving an automobile?
To this there was objection, and the objection overruled. Then the question was modified by the prosecutor:
It is contended, in the first place, that the defendant had not by its proofs brought the defendant's reputation in issue, and that the state was not entitled to rebut it; and also that the testimony was incompetent, in that it is only the general reputation that can be proven.
We think both grounds of appeal are without merit Defendant was on trial for manslaughter in having killed a child through reckless driving of an automobile. The only pertinent character evidence would obviously be his reputation for reckless driving, and this, we think, was an issue attempted to be set up by the defendant in calling the witness Rufalp, and with whose testimony he was doubtless contented when elicited by the prosecutor and the court. This testimony, according to its obvious import, tended to leave in the minds of the jury a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
... ... Ann. Cas. note page 14; Sec. 5773, W. C. S. 1920; Sec. 5731, ... W. C. S. 1920; Anderson v. Matthews, 8 Wyo. 307-312; ... Jones v. Bowman, 10 Wyo. 52; Adams v ... Dohrman, 63 Cal. 417. The rulings of the court on the ... admission of evidence were correct. State v ... Villano, 142 A. 643, (N. J.); 1 Wig. Ev. (2nd Ed.) 278; ... 16 C. J. 582; 16 C. J. 899; Dayton v. Wyoming National ... Bank, 1 Wyo. 263; Toms v. Whitemore, 6 Wyo ... 220, 40 Cyc. 2719. The court properly overruled ... defendant's motion for a new trial. 16 C. J. 1202; ... Paseo v. State, 19 ... ...
-
Smith v. State, 5 Div. 434
...offered by the state tending to show the general character of the accused with respect to lasciviousness.' See also, State v. Willano, 142 A. 643, 6 N.J.Misc. 713. The logic of these holdings seems to us to be sound. The appellant, in the instant case, was on trial for murder. The evidence ......
-
State v. Steensen
...proof receivable, namely, that it must be adapted to the charge made; it must involve the specific trait in issue. State v. Villano, 142 A. 643, 6 N.J.Misc. 713 (Sup.Ct.1928) affirmed 106 N.J.L. 601, 146 A. 917 (E. & A.1929); State v. Williams, 16 N.J.Super. 372, 84 A.2d 756 (App.Div.1951);......
-
Robinson v. United States, 9191.
...it was error to exclude evidence which he offered on that subject. Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. Thomas, 3 Cir., 174 F. 591; State v. Villano, 142 A. 643, 6 N.J. Misc. 713; Morris v. District of Columbia, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 124 F.2d 284. In the Thomas case as here, the testimony offered was o......