State v. Winne
| Citation | 27 N.J.Super. 120,98 A.2d 898 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 195,195 |
| Parties | STATE v. WINNE. |
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
David H. Harris, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State (Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen., attorney).
Joseph Weintraub, Newark, for defendant.
FRANCIS, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
This matter was set down for trial by the State on June 1. Early in May the defendant presented motions for a continuance of the trial, for a severance of the various counts of the indictment for trial purposes, for particulars on certain aspects of the indictments, and for leave to inspect certain files in the possession of the State.
The application for continuance was made on the ground that the trial date had been fixed without notice to or consultation with defense counsel. They urged that until a short time previous they had been devoting their efforts largely to the legal problem of the sufficiency of the indictment. When the Supreme Court sustained the indictment and trial was ordered they asserted lack of adequate time for the preparation of their factual case and further that the particulars and inspection sought were necessary to a fair presentation of a defense.
After argument the trial was continued to September 9 with the statement by the court that it should be ready for trial at that time.
On the argument of these motions the State was directed to furnish certain particulars with regard to the charge in the indictment that the defendant had knowledge of the gambling operations referred to therein.
At this time also it is my impression that an agreement was reached in open court that defendant would be permitted to examine files which were in the office of the Prosecutor of Bergen County at the time when he was superseded as such prosecutor, since which time he had had no access to them.
It was understood that this inspection was to be engaged in in the presence of a representative of the State, selected by the Deputy Attorney-General in charge of the prosecution.
Appropriate orders to accomplish these objectives were to be submitted for signature. And further, counsel for both parties were advised that in the event of any dispute as to the course of a particular phase of the inspection of records, the court would be available immediately to settle the dispute.
However, the orders as to the particulars and with respect to the severance were not presented for signature until Wednesday, July 15, 1953. These two orders were consented to as to form by the State. No order was submitted dealing with the inspection.
In the meantime the State served notice on defense counsel that it would seek a reargument of the matter of the particulars on Thursday, July 16, the court having agreed to hear the matter on that date.
On July 16 the only explanation for the long delay in presenting the various orders for execution was that counsel had been unable to agree on the form of the order for particulars and either the form or the substance of the order for the inspection. The delay is difficult to understand when obviously the presentation of the dispute to the court by either the State or defense, and particularly by the defense which maintained the need for early completion of the preparation for trial, would have resolved the difficulty in a very few minutes.
In any event the State, apparently being of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881, put the matter in a different light, sought the reargument and opposed both the furnishing of the particulars and the inspection.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moffa
...view before trial, the better to prepare for that event. State v. Murphy, 36 N.J. 172, 175 A.2d 622 (1961). In State v. Winne, 27 N.J.Super. 120, 123, 98 A.2d 898 (Cty.Ct.1953), affirmed, 27 N.J.Super. 304, 309, 99 A.2d 368 (App.Div.1953), a former prosecutor, charged with nonfeasance, was ......
-
State v. Murphy
...which is pervasive and includes the needs of an accused to prepare for the presentation of his defense. See State v. Winne, 27 N.J.Super. 120, 123, 98 A.2d 898 (Law Div.1953), affirmed 27 N.J.Super. 304, 309, 99 A.2d 368 Hence it is not a bar to inspection that the statement will not be use......
-
State v. Sullivan
...compelled to identify its witnesses or to reveal their expected testimony. A convenient illustration is found in State v. Winne, 27 N.J.Super. 120, 98 A.2d 898 (Law Div.1953), affirmed 27 N.J.Super. 304, 99 A.2d 368 (App.Div.1953). The indictment there was for nonfeasance in the office of p......
-
State v. Winne, A--659
...court was delivered by BIGELOW, J.A.D. The State appeals from two orders made by Judge Francis in the Law Division of the Superior Court, 98 A.2d 898. By one, the court authorized the defendant to inspect and copy certain papers; by the other, the court granted in part the defendant's motio......