State v. Sturchio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Sturchio

36 A.2d 301, 131 N.J.L. 256, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 186

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 9, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 36 A.2d 301 (State v. Sturchio) 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. Sturchio, 36 A.2d 301, 131 N.J.L. 256, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 186 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review is affirmed.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court it is said: “There was plenary proof in the case from which the jury could find that Geraldine Gauthier was pregnant to the knowledge of the defendant, who, with intent to procure a miscarriage, used instruments upon her which terminated a pregnancy.” The defendant-appellant at the trial insisted that cessation of pregnancy was essential to conviction for criminal abortion. We do not agree with this contention. The three essential elements required to establish guilt of the alleged offense in this case were pregnancy, intent to produce a miscarriage, and the use of an instrument or other means to produce a miscarriage. N. J. S. A. 2:105—1. The termination of pregnancy was not essential to a conviction.

Except as stated, the judgment is affirmed, on the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Hrher, Pbrskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Barberry. Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review is affirmed.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court it is said: “There was plenary proof in the case from which the jury could find that Geraldine Gauthier was pregnant to the knowledge of the defendant, who, with intent to procure a miscarriage, used instruments upon her which terminated a pregnancy.” The defendant-appellant at the trial insisted that cessation of pregnancy was essential to conviction for criminal abortion. We do not agree with this contention. The three essential elements required to establish guilt of the alleged offense in this case were pregnancy, intent to produce a miscarriage, and the use of an instrument or other means to produce a miscarriage. N. J. S. A. 2:105—1. The termination of pregnancy was not essential to a conviction.

Except as stated, the judgment is affirmed, on the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Hrher, Pbrskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Barberry. Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.2d 301, 131 N.J.L. 256, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sturchio-nj-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack