State v. Aviles

229 A.2d 514, 49 N.J. 192, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 217
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedApril 24, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 229 A.2d 514 (State v. Aviles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Aviles, 229 A.2d 514, 49 N.J. 192, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 217 (N.J. 1967).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cubiam.

This is an appeal by defendant from a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. He had previously been tried and a similar verdict had been rendered by the jury. We followed the ruling in Griffin v. State of California, 380 U. S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965), and reversed his first conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in charging the jury that defendant’s failure to take the stand justified an inference that defendant could not deny some of the evidence presented by the State. 45 N. J. 152 (1965).

At his second trial, defendant did not request a charge with respect to his failure to testify, and none was given. Defendant, through his appellate attorney, claims plain error, stating that the trial judge should have charged, even without any request by defendant, that no adverse inference could be drawn from defendant’s failure to testify. We find no constitutional or other basis for defendant’s contention nor do we find any basis for applying the plain error rule. R. R. 1:5-1 (a).

Defendant’s second ground for reversal is that the jury’s verdict, insofar as it was based upon a finding that defendant was sane when he committed the crime, was against *194 the weight of the evidence. A jury’s verdict will not be set aside “as against the weight of the evidence unless it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict was the result of mistake,' partiality, prejudice or passion.” R. R. 1:5-1 (a). We-cannot find any basis for disturbing the jury’s finding.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintratjb and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane man — 7.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of New Jersey v. Gray
244 A.2d 703 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
State v. Smith
242 A.2d 49 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
State v. De Stasio
229 A.2d 636 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 A.2d 514, 49 N.J. 192, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-aviles-nj-1967.