State v. Presha

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Presha

286 A.2d 77, 60 N.J. 102, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 221

DecidedJanuary 17, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.2d 77 (State v. Presha) 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. Presha, 286 A.2d 77, 60 N.J. 102, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 221 (N.J. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Pbancts, J.

(dissenting). I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in State v. Funicello, 60 N. J. 60 (1972).

On the interlocutory appeal of defendant White (116 N. J. Super. 415 (Law Div. 1971)), I would reverse the trial court’s order and reinstate the death penalty as a triable issue to be determined by a jury. On the appeal of defendant Rivers, in which his co-defendant Presha was permitted to join, I would affirm the order of the trial court in refusing to dismiss the death penalty issue. As to these interlocutory appeals, I reiterate the position taken in the Funicello dissent that the New Jersey homicide statute is not unconstitutional on its face so far as the death penalty is concerned. It is not necessary at this time to decide whether the Prosecutor, waived the death penalty in White. In all three cases, White, Rivers and Presha, there is nothing in the record before us which bars plea negotiation respecting the death penalty at any time before trial.

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

Pbancts, J.

(dissenting). I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in State v. Funicello, 60 N. J. 60 (1972).

On the interlocutory appeal of defendant White (116 N. J. Super. 415 (Law Div. 1971)), I would reverse the trial court’s order and reinstate the death penalty as a triable issue to be determined by a jury. On the appeal of defendant Rivers, in which his co-defendant Presha was permitted to join, I would affirm the order of the trial court in refusing to dismiss the death penalty issue. As to these interlocutory appeals, I reiterate the position taken in the Funicello dissent that the New Jersey homicide statute is not unconstitutional on its face so far as the death penalty is concerned. It is not necessary at this time to decide whether the Prosecutor, waived the death penalty in White. In all three cases, White, Rivers and Presha, there is nothing in the record before us which bars plea negotiation respecting the death penalty at any time before trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.2d 77, 60 N.J. 102, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-presha-nj-1972.