State v. Saunders

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

State v. Saunders

361 A.2d 111, 142 N.J. Super. 287

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 21, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 361 A.2d 111 (State v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 361 A.2d 111, 142 N.J. Super. 287 (N.J. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

142 N.J. Super. 287 (1976) 361 A.2d 111

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES SAUNDERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 14, 1976. Decided June 21, 1976.

Before Judges KOLE, ARD and COLLESTER.

*288 Mr. Alan Silber argued the cause for the appellant (Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Robert A. Baime, of counsel).

Mr. Roy B. Greenman, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

The conviction of defendant is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Bedford. Cf. Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for City of Richmond, D.C., 403 F. Supp. 1199, aff'd ___ U.S. ___, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976).

Affirmed.

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

142 N.J. Super. 287 (1976) 361 A.2d 111

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES SAUNDERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 14, 1976. Decided June 21, 1976.

Before Judges KOLE, ARD and COLLESTER.

*288 Mr. Alan Silber argued the cause for the appellant (Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Robert A. Baime, of counsel).

Mr. Roy B. Greenman, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

The conviction of defendant is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Bedford. Cf. Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for City of Richmond, D.C., 403 F. Supp. 1199, aff'd ___ U.S. ___, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 A.2d 111, 142 N.J. Super. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-saunders-njsuperctappdiv-1976.

Opinion

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES SAUNDERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES SAUNDERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.