From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Branam

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 26, 1979
79 N.J. 301 (N.J. 1979)

Opinion

Argued March 5, 1979 —

Decided March 26, 1979.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Anthony J. Parrillo, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Mr. Philip Vernon, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).


The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons experessed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.


I concur in the result, for it is not necessarily inconsistent to assert the defense of entrapment and simultaneously to deny commission of the crime under circumstances such as here, where defendant denies having the requisite mens rea. However, with respect to the elements of entrapment, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my concurring opinion in State v. Talbot, 71 N.J. 160 , 169 (1976).

SCHREIBER, J., concurring in the result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and HANDLER — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. Branam

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 26, 1979
79 N.J. 301 (N.J. 1979)
Case details for

State v. Branam

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAROL BRANAM…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 26, 1979

Citations

79 N.J. 301 (N.J. 1979)
399 A.2d 299

Citing Cases

State v. Long

See Ramseur, 106 N.J. at 212-236. Defendant, relying on the pre-Code case of State v. Branam, 161 N.J. Super.…

State v. Buendia

The inconsistency alleged by the government is a purely formal one. . . . Mathews, 485 U.S. at 67, 108 S.Ct.…