Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Jacques

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: October 7, 1968.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
GEORGE R. JACQUES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

For affirmance -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman. For reversal -- None.

Per Curiam

[52 NJ Page 482]

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division.

With respect to the increase in sentence, we emphasize that here the defendant was retried and convicted for the same offense after his first conviction, also upon a jury verdict, had been reversed for trial error. Between the first and second sentences he was convicted of at least one other crime in a different county, as to which he was awaiting sentence. All of this appeared in the pre-sentence report in the hands of the judge when he pronounced the increased sentence. The situation is strikingly distinctive from that in State v. Wolf, 46 N.J. 301 (1966), as the reasoning in that opinion shows. There we held that in a first degree murder case in which the first jury had recommended life imprisonment, the death penalty could not be imposed by the jury on a retrial following a reversal of the conviction. It should also be noted that we placed that result on nonconstitutional grounds and we do not conceive that the instant case presents a constitutional question either.

We agree with the Appellate Division that in the situation here, the second sentencing judge could properly increase the sentence by reason of the intervening conviction. We further feel that, when an increase is permissible, the

[52 NJ Page 483]

judge should state on the record at the time of sentence the subsequent facts which in his judgment warrant the increase, for the information of the defendant and any reviewing court. See State v. Leonard, 39 Wis. 2 d 461, 159 N.W. 2 d 577 (1968); Marano v. United States, 374 F.2d 583, 585 (1 st Cir. 1967). Our examination of the transcript of the sentencing discloses this to have been sufficiently done.

Affirmed.

19681007


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.