State v. Wilbely

Decision Date12 July 1973
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James WILBELY, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Gary H. Schlyen, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (Joseph D.J. Gourley, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney).

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 the judge erroneously enlarged the proscription of the statute to include the vestibule. It concluded the jury might have understood that defendant's presence in the vestibule constituted an unlawful entering and thus warranted a conviction on his own testimony.

This Court has repeatedly held that portions of a charge alleged to be erroneous cannot be dealt with in isolation but the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect. State v. Council, 49 N.J. 341, 230 A.2d 383 (1967) and see State v. Hale, 45 N.J. 255, 263--265, 212 A.2d 146 (1965).

We have read the entire charge and do not agree with the conclusion reached by the Appellate Division. The record indicates that no contention was made during the trial that entry into the vestibule rather than the interior of the building constituted an unlawful entry. The trial judge clearly instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defenda...

To continue reading

Request your trial
130 cases
  • Jamaine Grissom v. Mee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 5, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 14, 1984
    ...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 charge is t......
  • State v. Martini
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 9, 1993
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 15, 1992
    ...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 that the S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT