State v. Bresko

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Bresko

127 A. 681, 3 N.J. Misc. 222, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 283

DecidedFebruary 19, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A. 681 (State v. Bresko) 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. Bresko, 127 A. 681, 3 N.J. Misc. 222, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 283 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment charging him with rape upon the body of one L. C. The record sent up with the writ of error discloses that the case comes before us in the shape of a common law review, and not a certified case in conformity with the one hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Criminal Procedure act. The assignments of error are^ each of them, directed at alleged erroneous rulings of the court with relation to evidence offered at the trial and other matters occurring during the course thereof, and with relation to the charge to the jury.

It is enough to say, in disposing of the case before us, that, although the rulings of the court referred to in the assignments were apparently made the subject of exceptions, none of these exceptions have been authenticated by the signature and seal of the trial judge, and this applies also to those assignments relating to the charge to the jury. It is entirely settled that, in criminal cases, other than those which come up for review under section 136 of the Criminal Procedure [223]*223act, the court of review will not consider exceptions unless they have been authenticated. State v. Savage, 79 N. J. L. 583; State v. Ramage, 91 Id. 435.

The conviction under review will be affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment charging him with rape upon the body of one L. C. The record sent up with the writ of error discloses that the case comes before us in the shape of a common law review, and not a certified case in conformity with the one hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Criminal Procedure act. The assignments of error are^ each of them, directed at alleged erroneous rulings of the court with relation to evidence offered at the trial and other matters occurring during the course thereof, and with relation to the charge to the jury.

It is enough to say, in disposing of the case before us, that, although the rulings of the court referred to in the assignments were apparently made the subject of exceptions, none of these exceptions have been authenticated by the signature and seal of the trial judge, and this applies also to those assignments relating to the charge to the jury. It is entirely settled that, in criminal cases, other than those which come up for review under section 136 of the Criminal Procedure [223]*223act, the court of review will not consider exceptions unless they have been authenticated. State v. Savage, 79 N. J. L. 583; State v. Ramage, 91 Id. 435.

The conviction under review will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A. 681, 3 N.J. Misc. 222, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bresko-nj-1925.