State v. Williams

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Williams

217 A.2d 609, 46 N.J. 427, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 269

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 217 A.2d 609 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 217 A.2d 609, 46 N.J. 427, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 269 (N.J. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Counsel assigned to represent an indigent defendant charged with entering with intent to steal obtained an order authorizing him to retain a toxicologist at the expense of the county. The treasurer of the county appealed, and we certified the appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.

Appellant contends the trial court could not make the order in question because no rule of court authorized it. As we have this day held in State v. Rush, 46 N. J. 399 (1966), no rule was needed to that end.

The other point made is that the services of a toxicologist were unnecessary. As to this, we find nothing to impugn the trial court’s judgment. That the testimony of the toxicologist was excluded at trial does not demonstrate the order itself was erroneous.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall and Schettino — 6.

For reversal — None.

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