State v. Clark
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL LEE CLARK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, 128 N. J. Super. 120.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hughes, C. J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority view and would reverse the Appellate Division and reinstate the judgment of conviction below.
The reference to the polygraph test by the State witness was inadvertent and unintended, and no question of pros-ecutorial purpose in its disclosure was involved; the quantum of evidence of guilt, in my opinion, was more than sufficient to uphold the jury’s verdict, and I see in the case no prejudicial error and no plain error. B. 2:10-2. The sentence, in the circumstances of the case, was not excessive.
Justice Hall has authorized me to say that he joins me in this opinion.
For affirmance — Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clifford — 5.
*340 For reversal — Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Hall— 2.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.