State v. Capawanna
196 A. 679, 119 N.J.L. 337, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 268
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in its opinion. We reserve, however, and do not pass upon, the question of whether the admission in evidence of a certain X-ray photograph was error.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Lloyd, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles-Keil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Capawanna, 196 A. 679, 119 N.J.L. 337, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 268 (N.J. 1938).
196 A. 679 (State v. Capawanna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Leckis
192 A.2d 161 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1963)
State v. Boening
165 A.2d 203 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1960)
State v. Edwards
146 A.2d 209 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
State v. Maxwell
142 A.2d 108 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
State v. Riley
140 A.2d 543 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
State v. McGrath
110 A.2d 11 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1954)
State v. Congro
94 A.2d 499 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
State v. Bunk
73 A.2d 249 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1950)