State v. Hatch

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

State v. Hatch

301 A.2d 160, 122 N.J. Super. 538, 1973 N.J. Super. LEXIS 698

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 23, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.2d 160 (State v. Hatch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hatch, 301 A.2d 160, 122 N.J. Super. 538, 1973 N.J. Super. LEXIS 698 (N.J. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Leahy below. 118 N. J. Super. 96 (Cty. Ct. 1972).

Without diminishing the vitality of the truism that each individual is expected to know the law, we are satisfied that conviction for a crime of this nature without an at[540]*540tendant showing of knowledge, actual or constructive, of the precise proscription involved, in a situation where defendant had reason to believe otherwise, as here, presents a sufficiently serious due process challenge to justify the result below. Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 78 S. Ct. 240, 2 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1957), reh. den. 355 U. S. 937, 78 S. Ct. 410, 2 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1958). We are not persuaded to the contrary by the argument of the State that the registration requirement of defendant's home state should have provided sufficient warning of the likelihood of licensing in New Jersey to constitute constructive knowledge.

It being unnecessary to the decision here, we intimate no opinion with respect to what the result might be were notice to be given, for instance by signs at points of entry to the State, advising transients of the necessity for a firearms purchaser identificaton card.

In the circumstances of this ease, we affirm.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Leahy below. 118 N. J. Super. 96 (Cty. Ct. 1972).

Without diminishing the vitality of the truism that each individual is expected to know the law, we are satisfied that conviction for a crime of this nature without an at[540]*540tendant showing of knowledge, actual or constructive, of the precise proscription involved, in a situation where defendant had reason to believe otherwise, as here, presents a sufficiently serious due process challenge to justify the result below. Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 78 S. Ct. 240, 2 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1957), reh. den. 355 U. S. 937, 78 S. Ct. 410, 2 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1958). We are not persuaded to the contrary by the argument of the State that the registration requirement of defendant's home state should have provided sufficient warning of the likelihood of licensing in New Jersey to constitute constructive knowledge.

It being unnecessary to the decision here, we intimate no opinion with respect to what the result might be were notice to be given, for instance by signs at points of entry to the State, advising transients of the necessity for a firearms purchaser identificaton card.

In the circumstances of this ease, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.2d 160, 122 N.J. Super. 538, 1973 N.J. Super. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hatch-njsuperctappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack