State v. Webber
| Citation | 68 A. 1100,76 N.J.L. 199 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEBBER. |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1908 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Bergen County.
Fred Webber was convicted of larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1907, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BERGEN, J.
Ernest Koester, for plaintiff in error. Peter W. Stagg, for the State.
Under an indictment found in the Bergen county quarter sessions, the defendant was charged in the first count with breaking and entering with intent to steal, and by the second count with stealing "gold pins, silverware, and jewelry of the value of $50." The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the second count, and was sentenced to state prison for seven years. The errors assigned are that the indictment does not charge a crime; and, second, that the sentence is for a longer term than the law allows; and, third, that the sentence was for an indefinite term. That a crime is not charged is rested upon the claim that the articles are not sufficiently described. The object of a distinct description is to fairly inform the defendant of the precise offense with which, he is charged, and to secure him against another prosecution for the same offense, and before pleading he has a right to a specific description of the articles said to be stolen, but the crime is sufficiently charged if the indictment apprises the defendant fairly of the charge. If, without objection to the form of the statement, the defendant pleads guilty to the charge of stealing the goods as charged, the presumption is that he knew the offense he was pleading guilty to, and was fairly informed of the precise crime charged against him in the indictment. This assignment of error cannot be supported.
The second assignment is based upon the claim that from the description of the articles enumerated in the indictment no value can be ascertained, and, as it does not appear that their value was over $20, the sentence is excessive. There is nothing on this point. The indictment alleges the value of the goods stolen to be $50, thereby charging a crime justifying the judgment in this case. To this charge the defendant pleaded guilty, and he cannot now deny what his plea admits; for, if he desired to reduce the grade of his crime by putting the state to proof that the crime as charged in the indictment was true, he should have entered a plea of not guilty, and required the state to prove the value of the articles stolen.
The third and last...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mead v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church
...the party so pleading. Morrissey v. Powell, 340 Mass. 268, 23 N.E.2d 411, 124 A.L.R. 1522 (Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct.1939); State v. Webber, 76 N.J.L. 199, 68 A. 1100 (Sup.Ct.1908); State v. Whittington, 4 N.J.Misc. 590, 133 A. 762 (Sup.Ct.1926); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 361 Pa. 391, 65 A.2d 353 (Sup......
-
State v. Mull
...defendant pleaded guilty in the municipal court require or justify a dismissal of his appeal? In this regard, see State v. Webber, 76 N.J.L. 199, 68 A. 1100 (Sup.Ct.1908); State v. Heyer, 89 N.J.L. 187, 98 A. 413 (E. & A. 1916); State ex rel. Borough of South Belmar v. Whittington, 4 N.J.Mi......
-
State v. Schrier
...a plea of guilty, the defendant could not call in question the facts charged. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 390, p. 574; State v. Webber, 76 N.J.L. 199, 68 A. 1100 (Sup.Ct.1908); State of New Jersey ex rel. Borough of South Belmar v. Whittington, 4 N.J.Misc. 590, 133 A. 762 (Sup.Ct.1926); State ......
-
State v. Meinken
...defendant pleaded guilty in the municipal court require or justify a dismissal of his appeal? In this regard, see State v. Webber, 76 N.J.L. 199, 68 A. 1100 (Sup.Ct.1908); State v. Heyer, 89 N.J.L. 187, 98 A. 413 (E. & A.1916); State ex rel. Borough of South Belmar v. Whittington, 133 A. 76......