Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Farlow

Decided: December 22, 1980.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT FARLOW, ALSO REFERRED TO AS ROBERT F. FARLOW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County.

Bischoff, Milmed and Francis. The opinion of the court was delivered by Milmed, J.A.D.

Milmed

Tried to a jury, defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, while armed, and possession of a revolver in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41(a). His motion for a judgment of acquittal, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, was denied. On the conviction for murder in the first degree he was sentenced to the State Prison for life. On the conviction for being armed at the time of the murder he was sentenced to the same institution for a consecutive term of nine to ten years. And, on the conviction for possession of a revolver without the requisite permit he was sentenced to the same institution for a concurrent term of six to seven years. This appeal followed.

Defendant's contentions on the appeal, as set forth in the brief submitted on his behalf, are the following:

POINT I The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds.

POINT II The trial court erred in refusing to enter an acquittal as to first-degree murder at the close of the State's case.

POINT III The trial court erred in failing to exclude defendant's prior conviction from the evidence (not raised below) and in refusing to permit explanation of the nature and circumstances of the prior offense.

POINT IV The comments of the prosecutor on summation were both prejudicial and outside the evidence, and denied defendant a fair trial.

POINT V The imposition of consecutive sentences was improper.

We have considered these contentions and the arguments advanced in support of them in our review of the record submitted on the appeal. We find the issues raised by defendant to be clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). His motion for a judgment of acquittal, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, was properly denied. We add the following observations regarding defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the first two counts of the indictment, viz. , the counts charging him with: (1) murder, and (2) while armed.

The indictment (# 1721-75) which was returned by a Camden County Grand Jury charged in the first count that:

On or about the 31st day of May, 1976 in the City of Gloucester in the County of Camden aforesaid, and within the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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