State v. Winne

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Moffa

    36 N.J. 219 (N.J. 1961)   Cited 27 times
    Permitting defendant to inspect witness's grand jury testimony

    State v. Murphy, 36 N.J. 172, 175 A.2d 622 (1961). In State v. Winne, 27 N.J. Super. 120, 123 ( Cty. Ct. 1953), affirmed 27 N.J. Super. 304, 309 ( App.Div. 1953), a former prosecutor, charged with nonfeasance, was permitted to examine the files of his former office. In State v.Bunk, 63 A.2d 842 ( N.J. Cty. Ct. 1949), pretrial inspection was ordered of the weapons and the fatal bullets, as well as of institutional records of mental examinations of a defendant made prior to the crime.

  2. State v. Murphy

    36 N.J. 172 (N.J. 1961)   Cited 34 times
    In State v. Murphy, 36 N.J. 172, 186, 175 A.2d 622 (1961), we stated that the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor "is not a separate level of government somewhere between the federal government and the contracting states.

    Specifically, we provided for an absolute right to discovery of everything (other than his statement) taken from a defendant, and, as to all else, we provided for a decision upon the basis of the requirements of justice, a concept which is pervasive and includes the needs of an accused to prepare for the presentation of his defense. See State v. Winne, 27 N.J. Super. 120, 123 ( Law Div. 1953), affirmed 27 N.J. Super. 304, 309 ( App. Div. 1953). Hence it is not a bar to inspection that the statement will not be used by the State.

  3. State v. Sullivan

    33 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 1954)   Cited 10 times

    We hesitate to attempt to express an invariable test, but suggest that, at least ordinarily, the State may be required to furnish a statement of the constituent events of the offense and the actors involved or concerned in those events, but may not be compelled to identify its witnesses or to reveal their expected testimony. A convenient illustration is found in State v. Winne, 27 N.J. Super. 120 ( Law Div. 1953), affirmed 27 N.J. Super. 304 ( App. Div. 1953).