From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Greer

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Oct 1, 1969
107 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

Argued September 23, 1969 —

Decided October 1, 1969.

Appeal from The Essex County Court, Law Division.

Mrs. Rosemary K. Reavey, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney). Mr. David S. Baime, Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, County Prosecutor, attorney).


Defendant appeals from a conviction on indictments charging (1) attempted breaking and entering with intent to steal (N.J.S.A. 2A:85-5) and (2) possession of "a knife having a blade which automatically opened by hand-pressure applied to a button" [switchblade knife], in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-62.

We affirm. We find no error in the court's refusal to sever the indictments for trial. Both offenses were connected and constituted part of a common scheme. R.R. 3:5-6; R.R. 3:4-7. We also find no merit in the contention that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for an acquittal on the indictment charging possession of the switchblade knife because the blade of the knife was bent and it was inoperable. We are satisfied that the legislative intent in the enactment of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-62 was to prohibit possession of switchblade knives and that the fact that the knife was inoperable because the blade was bent did not remove it from the prohibition of the statute. Cf. Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014 (2 d Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Greer

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Oct 1, 1969
107 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

State v. Greer

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ERNEST GREER…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Oct 1, 1969

Citations

107 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 1969)
257 A.2d 119

Citing Cases

State v. Morgan

That question should be resolved as other questions of fact. Although this is apparently an issue of first…