State v. Dicanio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Dicanio

138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 188, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 329

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 17, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A. 923 (State v. Dicanio) 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. Dicanio, 138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 188, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 329 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The defendant, Anthony DiCanio, was indicted jointly with John Letter, tried and convicted in the Atlantic Quarter Sessions, as charged in the indictment, for the crime of robbery, and sentenced. The judgment and conviction were reviewed by the Supreme Court on error, and the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial were certified and returned. The conviction of Letter was reversed, and as to DiCanio was affirmed; whereupon the latter, DiCanio, sued out a writ of error from this court to review the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming his conviction.

The judgment against DiCanio will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Letter and DiCanio, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 395, as to the guilt of the defendant DiCanio.

For affirmance — Trenohard, Parker, Black, Katzenbach, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 11.

For reversal — PTone.

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

Pee Curiam.

The defendant, Anthony DiCanio, was indicted jointly with John Letter, tried and convicted in the Atlantic Quarter Sessions, as charged in the indictment, for the crime of robbery, and sentenced. The judgment and conviction were reviewed by the Supreme Court on error, and the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial were certified and returned. The conviction of Letter was reversed, and as to DiCanio was affirmed; whereupon the latter, DiCanio, sued out a writ of error from this court to review the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming his conviction.

The judgment against DiCanio will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Letter and DiCanio, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 395, as to the guilt of the defendant DiCanio.

For affirmance — Trenohard, Parker, Black, Katzenbach, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 11.

For reversal — PTone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 188, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dicanio-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack