State v. Friedman
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IN ERROR v. MOE FRIEDMAN, IN ERROR
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The points made for reversal of the judgment are that the trial court erred in charging the jury that the liquor involved was property; in charging that any unlawful breaking constitutes breaking and entering, and unlawful taking constitutes larceny, and in imposing sentence at a succeeding term without any continuance. We are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and on the points now involved are content to adopt the per curiam filed in the Supreme *580 Court. The other points discussed in that per curiam are not argued here, and consequently no opinion need be expressed thereon.
As to the practice of sentencing at a term after the verdict, the prosecutor cites the old case of State v. Aaron, 4 N. J. L. (1 South.) 232, 236 as indicating that such practice was fully recognized over a century ago.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, White, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.