Decided: July 20, 1979.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
EUGENE MILLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, whose opinion is reported at 144 N.J. Super. 91 (1976).
Fritz, Bischoff and Morgan.
[169 NJSuper Page 424]
The factual background of this appeal may by found in the written opinion of Judge Arnone denying defendant's motion for a new trial. 144 N.J. Super. 91. Before us defendant argues six points in addition to the one determined there. He complains that
POINT I Prejudicial references regarding defendant's picture
at police headquarters denied defendant a fair trial.
POINT II The trial court erred in permitting victim to partially
disrobe and display his wounds to the jury.
POINT III The trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing
as to whether Miranda warnings were given to de-
fendant prior to making statement to police officer
at the scene of arrest.
POINT IV It was error to admit defendant's statement into evi-
dence as the surrounding circumstances rendered it
involuntary and inadmissible.
POINT V Nondisclosure of witness' previous indictment by
prosecutor's office denied defendant due process of
POINT VI The aggregate of the errors below was so prejudicial
as to entitle defendant to a new trial.
POINT VII The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and
constituted an abuse of the trial court's expression
None of the several issues raised causes us any concern, let alone suggests a reason for reversal. While we have come to this conclusion wholly apart from any thought of defendant's guilt, it does occur to us that this guilt is so manifest that considerable error might be tolerated before it raised a question as to whether it had a tendency to produce an unjust result. The thought is an idle one: we perceive no error and are satisfied that all the issues are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
We would only add that, anent Point V above, we concur with Judge Arnone in the articulate expressions of his written opinion.