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. Schumann

Decided: July 1, 1987.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT J. SCHUMANN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from Superior Court, Law Division, Monmouth County.

Skillman and Landau. The opinion of the court was delivered by Landau, J.s.c. (temporarily assigned).

Landau

Tried to a jury defendant Robert J. Schumann was convicted of aggravated sexual assault contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1) (count one); sexual assault contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b (count two); and endangering the welfare of a child contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(4) and N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a (counts three and four). All convictions stem from Schumann's sexual conduct with D.H., an 11 year old Pennsylvania boy on June 14, 1984 during a trip to Sandy Hook. Schumann was sentenced to an aggregate term of 22 years with an 11 year parole ineligibility period.

On appeal, Schumann raises the following issues:

POINT I

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TRY COUNT THREE, ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, BECAUSE THE CRIME OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHERE FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE. TRYING THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE CLEAR MANDATE OF EVIDENCE RULE 55 BY ALLOWING THE VICTIM TO TESTIFY TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT CONCERNING PRIOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

POINT III

PREJUDICE AND IMPROPER REMARKS MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR DURING HIS SUMMATION DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND INTER ALIA, CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY. (Partially Raised Below)

POINT IV

THE TRIAL COURT'S VERDICT ON COUNT THREE OF THE INDICTMENT IS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

POINT V

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL PRESENTENCE REPORT: HIS RELIANCE UPON THAT REPORT CAUSED HIM TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE ...


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.