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. Salentre

Decided: July 25, 1994.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DONALD SALENTRE, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



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

Before Judges Brody, Stern and Keefe.

Stern

The opinion of the court was delivered by

STERN, J.A.D.

Defendant was charged in three counts of a twenty-four count indictment with conspiracy to receive and fence stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count one), theft by receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7 and 2C:2-6 (count two), and fencing, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.1 and 2C:2-6 (count three). The charges alleged offenses occurring between April 28, 1982 and April 27, 1987, and aggregating more than $75,000 and, hence, were second degree crimes, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-4a, 2C:20-2b(1)a. However, by order entered on December 15, 1989, the second and third counts were "amended to reflect a shortened alleged time period of April 10, 1987 to April 27, 1987 and to reflect a reduced stolen property value of over $500." Hence, counts two and three, as amended, embodied third degree crimes. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)a. The Judge declined to so amend the conspiracy count which related to defendant, his father and twenty other co-defendants. Only defendant and his father were charged in counts two and three.

Defendant was convicted on the three counts and sentenced to seven years in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections on count one. He was also fined $7,500. The other convictions were merged into count one.*fn1

On this appeal defendant argues:

POINT I THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE

INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

POINT II THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

RECUSE THE COURT WAS ERROR.

POINT III THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN

GRANTED.

POINT IV THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF ITEMS

NOT PROVEN TO BE STOLEN WAS ERROR.

POINT V CERTAIN CONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTOR WAS

IMPROPER AND DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF

A FAIR TRIAL.

POINT VI IT WAS ERROR FOR DETECTIVE O'DONNELL TO

GIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING A FENCING

OPERATION AT TRIAL.

POINT VII THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY REGARDING TAPED

CONVERSATIONS NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

WAS ERRONEOUS.

POINT VIII CERTAIN TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 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.