From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Soriano

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Nov 3, 1969
54 N.J. 567 (N.J. 1969)

Summary

noting that defendant failed to raise double jeopardy defense prior to trial on charges of assault and escape conviction, but rejecting defense on merits; finding record inadequate to support claim that defendant's earlier municipal court conviction under disorderly persons statute equated with later charges of assault and escape

Summary of this case from State v. Allah

Opinion

Argued October 21, 1969 —

Decided November 3, 1969.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 107 N.J. Super. 286.

Miss Cynthia M. Jacob, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. Stanley C. VanNess, Public Defender, attorney).

Mr. Robert N. Golden, Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. Michael R. Imbriani, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney).


The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion per curiam in the Appellate Division, 107 N.J. Super. 286.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For reversal — NONE.


Summaries of

State v. Soriano

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Nov 3, 1969
54 N.J. 567 (N.J. 1969)

noting that defendant failed to raise double jeopardy defense prior to trial on charges of assault and escape conviction, but rejecting defense on merits; finding record inadequate to support claim that defendant's earlier municipal court conviction under disorderly persons statute equated with later charges of assault and escape

Summary of this case from State v. Allah
Case details for

State v. Soriano

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BRUNO JOSEPH SORIANO…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Nov 3, 1969

Citations

54 N.J. 567 (N.J. 1969)
258 A.2d 361

Citing Cases

State v. Tilghman

isgust, annoyance, disbelief of the defendant, and amusement because the judge instructed jury to disregard…

State v. Allah

noting defendant's claim not raised prior to trial and therefore waived underRule 3:10-2(c), but nonetheless…