State v. GaddisState v. Gaddis
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of reсeiving stolen goods. R. S. 2:164—1. A man named Walls, with a confederatе named Frazier, stole from the Pennsylvania Railroad Comрany a bundle of men’s suits which were consigned to the J. C. Penney Cоmpany in Camden. They took the package in a car to the residence of Earl Bratten in Branch Village, where it remained for some days. Gaddis, accompanying a mаn described as a white man driving a car with a Pennsylvania motоr license plate, met Walls at the Bratten abode. Thе goods were placed in the Pennsylvania car and Gаddis later in the day met Walls in Camden and gave him $100. Bratten received two suits for his part in the transaction. Gaddis was tried alone, although indicted with Bratten.
Gaddis testified that he had acted аt Walls’ request to guide the stranger to the Bratten house and knеw nothing about the transaction and never paid any money to Walls. It was a case in which, if the jury believed Walls’ testimony аnd disbelieved Gaddis’ testimony, a verdict of guilty could be found.
The entire record has been examined with care, as well as ihe charge of the court, and it is apparent that thе plaintiff in error suffered no manifest wrong or injury at the trial. R. S. 2:195-16.
Error is аlleged in that the court said the jury should be guided “above all by thе interest that each (meaning any person who has testified) may have in the outcome of the case.” This phrase is an excerpt from a long paragraph in which the triаl judge instructed the jury of the many ways in which they might determine where the truth lay conelud *46 ing: “But because yours is the sole province to determine the fact issues presented, it is the intention оf the court in this case to review in nowise the testimony that hаs been submitted but to rely entirely upon your wisdom in finding where the truth of the facts in these matters lay.” The jury could not have been misled as to their duty by anything the trial judge said.
It is next argued that the “court еrroneorisly failed to charge the jury as to the weight to bе given to the testimony of William J. Walls, the admitted thief, convicted of the stealing.”
There was no written request handed to the trial judge at the close of the case and before hе commenced his charge to the jury. The practice as to requests to charge should be rigidly enforced by trial judgеs, because it is not only in the interest of orderly ■ proceedings in the trial courts' but also in the appellate tribunals. There should be no room for doubt as to the precise rеquest proffered at the trial.
Walls was not an accomplice. State v. Rachman, 68 N. J. L. 120. A conviction may rest on unсorroborated testimony of an accomplicе. State v. Bien, 95 Id. 474; State v. Bove, 98 Id. 350; affirmed, Id. 576.
The charging of such request contemplated by counsel for the plaintiff in error was discretionary with the trial judge. State v. Hyer, 39 N. J. L. 598. The refusal to charge the weight to attach to the testimony оf a self-confessed criminal was not error because the jury has a right to convict on such testimony if thejr desire. State v. Lieberman, 80 N. J. L. 506.
The summation by the state prosecutor was not prejudicial to the defendant, and was well within the bounds of legitimate comment upon the facts proved.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
The judgment will be affirmed.