State v. Wines
Decision Date | 30 January 1961 |
Docket Number | No. A--73,A--73 |
Citation | 65 N.J.Super. 262,167 A.2d 650 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harry WINES, Defendant-Appellant, and Anthony Palumbo, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
A. Donald McKenzie, Jr., Union, for appellant Harry Wines (McKenzie & Hehl, Union, attorneys).
Joseph Moritz, Jersey City, for appellant Anthony Palumbo.
Edward F. Hamill, Asst. Prosecutor, Jersey City, for respondent (Lawrence A. Whipple, Hudson County Prosecutor, Jersey City, attorney).
Before Judges PRICE, GAULKIN and SULLIVAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GAULKIN, J.A.D.
Following the reversal of their previous convictions (State v. Wines, 47 N.J.Super. 235, 135 A.2d 543 (App.Div.1957) defendants were again convicted, and again they appeal.
They contend the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. No purpose would be served by recounting the details of the evidence. Suffice it to say that we have examined it carefully within the scope of our review, and find that the issues were those of fact and credibility, and that the verdict finds adequate support in the evidence.
The more serious questions arise out of the following facts.
When the indictment was handed up it charged, in the first count, that the defendants 'did forcibly take from the person of Herman Smith * * * $362 * * * by violence and putting the said Herman Smith in fear, the said Harry Wines and Anthony Palumbo then and there being armed with, and having in their possession, a certain firearm, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S. 2A:151--41 and 2A:141--1 * * *.' N.J.S. 2A:151--41, N.J.S.A. is the concealed weapon statute; N.J.S. 2A:141--1, N.J.S.A. the robbery statute. The statute that empowers the court to give an additional sentence for committing robbery while armed is N.J.S. 2A:151--5, N.J.S.A., but that number did not appear anywhere in the indictment. There was a second count with which we need not concern ourselves, because it was dismissed on the State's motion during the second trial.
In spite of the reference to N.J.S. 2A:151--41, N.J.S.A., the indictment did not contain words which charged the crime of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Quinn, 108 N.J.L. 467, 158 A. 834 (Sup.Ct.1932). Nevertheless, the trial judge, in the first trial, treated it as if it did. He charged the jury:
'Count number one charges that on April 20, 1955, in the town of Guttenberg these two defendants did commit the crime of armed robbery against one Herman Smith, charging, as it says here in the formal words of the charging part, that these men 'in the County of Hudson aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did forcibly take from the person of Herman Smith, cash, lawful money, in the amount of $362.00 by violence and putting the said Herman Smith in fear, the said Harry Wines and Anthony Palumbo then and there being armed with, and having in their possession, a certain firearm, contrary to the provisions' of the law.
The jury thereafter returned its verdict as follows:
'* * * The Foreman: We, the jury, find the defendants, Harry Wines and Anthony Palumbo guilty of the charges made by the State.
'The Court: Now you say, Mr. Foreman, you find the defendants guilty of the charges made by the State.
'The Foreman: Yes, sir.
'The Foreman: Yes, sir.
'The Foreman: We find Harry Wines guilty of that charge, carrying a concealed weapon.
'The Court: How about Palumbo?
'The Foreman: No, he is not guilty of that charge.
'The Foreman: Both guilty.
'The Foreman: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Is that your unanimous verdict?
'The Foreman: Yes.'
According to the Clerk's docket, the judge then sentenced Wines '(o)n 1st Count for a maximum term of Fifteen (15) Years and a minimum term of Ten (10) Years * * * On Carrying Concealed Weapon 1st Count for a Max term of three (3) Years and a Minimum term of One (1) Year concurrently with sentence imposed on 1st Count. * * *' On the second count (dismissed, as we have said, by the prosecutor during the second trial, pursuant to said reversal), the sentence was 5 to 7 years 'consecutively after sentence imposed on 1st Count. * * *' Palumbo received the same sentences, except, of course, upon the concealed weapon charge.
The reversal in 47 N.J.Super. 235, 135 A.2d 543, supra, was based upon error in the court's charge relating to alibi. It therefore vitiated the entire judgment of the first trial, and all of the sentences which resulted therefrom, even though the opinion made no mention of Wines's concealed weapon conviction.
On the morning of the retrial, the trial court granted the State's motion, over defendants' objection, to amend 'N.J.S. 2A:151--41' (concealed weapons) to 'N.J.S. 2A:151--5' (added penalty for robbery while armed). After the defendants were again convicted, upon the indictment as thus amended, each was sentenced
Defendants contend that the court had no right to permit the amendment, because it substituted a different offense for the one which the trial court had said, in the first trial, was set forth in the indictment.
If we lay aside the trial court's misconstruction of the indictment and confine ourselves to its language, it is obvious that the Words of the indictment Described robbery (N.J.S. 2A:141--1, N.J.S.A.) while armed (N.J.S. 2A:151--5, N.J.S.A.), and that the reference to N.J.S. 2A:151--41, N.J.S.A. was erroneous. That error was a mere matter of form, and amendable. R.R. 3:4[167 A.2d 654] --3(a); State v. La Vera, 35 N.J.Super. 256, 113 A.2d 829 (App.Div.1955), certiorari denied 350 U.S. 853, 76 S.Ct. 95, 100 L.Ed. 758 (1955). Cf. State v. Tumbiolo, 28 N.J.Super. 231, 100 A.2d 496 (App.Div.1953), certification denied 14 N.J. 495, 103 A.2d 182 (1954), certiorari denied 347 U.S. 948, 74...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gledhill
...was authorized under our court rules and did not prejudice defendant. See generally: R. 3:7--3(a); R. 3:7--4; State v. Wines, 65 N.J.Super. 262, 167 A.2d 650 (App.Div.1961), certif. den. 34 N.J. 474, 170 A.2d 86 (1961); State v. Bott, 53 N.J. 391, 402--403, 251 A.2d 115 (1969); State v. Kus......
-
State v. Lynds
...425 (Miss.1988) (motion to suppress based on additional evidence must be heard following reversal and remand); State v. Wines, 65 N.J.Super. 262, 270, 167 A.2d 650, 655 (1961) (trial court had the same power over the conduct of the case following reversal and remand "as when it was first ha......
-
State v. Donato
...are deemed to be merely formal. See, e. g., Dendy v. State, 224 Miss. 208, 213, 79 So.2d 827, 829 (1955); State v. Wines, 65 N.J.Super. 262, 268, 167 A.2d 650, 653 (1961); Henderson v. State, 7 N.J.Misc. 520, 522, 146 A. 335, 336 (1929); People v. Grawunder, 2 Misc.2d 126, 128, 151 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Palumbo v. State of New Jersey
...N.J. Super. 235, 135 A.2d 543 (App.Div.1957); on retrial Palumbo was found guilty by a jury, May 29, 1959, aff'd, State v. Wines, 65 N.J.Super. 262, 167 A.2d 650 (App. Div.), cert. denied, State v. Wines, 34 N.J. 474, 170 A.2d 86, cert. denied, Palumbo v. New Jersey, 368 U.S. 905, 82 S.Ct. ......