State v. Wilbely
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 307 A.2d 608,63 N.J. 420 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James WILBELY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1973 |
Page 420
v.
James WILBELY, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided July 12, 1973.
Gary H. Schlyen, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (Joseph D.J. Gourley, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney).
Page 421
John H. Ratliff, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-respondent (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of unlawfully entering a store in Paterson with intent to steal, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:94--1. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction on the ground that the trial judge committed 'plain error' in his charge to the jury. 122 N.J.Super. 463, 300 A.2d 860 (1973). We grant the State's petition for certification to review the decision of the Appellate Division.
The proofs offered by the State showed that at about 12:40 A.M. on July 16, 1971 police officers were dispatched to investigate a reported break-in at a store. When they arrived that noticed that the entrance door was ajar and a single light was on inside. They testified they saw defendant and another black male inside the store. As the officers alighted from their patrol car and approached the store the two men ran out through the door in an attempt to flee but were apprehended by the police. An examination of the door revealed that the doorjamb had been splintered and the lock was broken. Defendant denied his guilt of the charge. He said he noticed a light inside the store and that the door was open. He claimed he intended to purchase cigarettes and was in the outside 'vestibule' when the police arrived. (The door is recessed about three or four feet from the front of the building.) He said he heard a shot and ran down the street where he was stopped by the police.
In his charge the judge, in defining unlawful entering, told the jury that, 'an entry is accomplished if any part of the body, and (sic) arm, a finger or a foot, or even an instrument was inserted into the building or space.'
The Appellate Division held that by including the words 'or space' in the charge [307 A.2d 609] the judge erroneously enlarged the proscription of the statute to include the vestibule. It concluded the jury might have understood that defendant's
Page 422
presence in the vestibule constituted an unlawful entering and thus warranted a conviction on his own testimony.This Court has repeatedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamaine Grissom v. Mee, Civil Action No. 10-1468 (CCC)
...be dealt with in isolation but the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.'" Ibid. (Quoting State v Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422 (1973)). Furthermore, because defendant failed to object at trial, this court must consider whether plain error occurred. State v. Broo......
-
State v. Conway
...settled that a jury charge must be reviewed in its entirety and cannot be regarded as a series of unrelated statements. State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973). Conway's claim that the first hours of deliberation before the supplemental charge "infected" the supplemental cha......
-
State v. Martini
...be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.' " Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 135, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973)). The instructions also must be considered in light of the arguments of counsel. Id. at 145, 586 A.2d We have long acce......
-
State v. Purnell
...examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.' " State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 135, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973)). Our review of the court's charge to the jury convinces us that its overwhelming tenor was to convey to the jury t......
-
Jamaine Grissom v. Mee, Civil Action No. 10-1468 (CCC)
...be dealt with in isolation but the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.'" Ibid. (Quoting State v Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422 (1973)). Furthermore, because defendant failed to object at trial, this court must consider whether plain error occurred. State v. Broo......
-
State v. Conway
...settled that a jury charge must be reviewed in its entirety and cannot be regarded as a series of unrelated statements. State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973). Conway's claim that the first hours of deliberation before the supplemental charge "infected" the supplemental cha......
-
State v. Martini
...be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.' " Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 135, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973)). The instructions also must be considered in light of the arguments of counsel. Id. at 145, 586 A.2d We have long acce......
-
State v. Purnell
...examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.' " State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 135, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973)). Our review of the court's charge to the jury convinces us that its overwhelming tenor was to convey to the jury t......