State v. HolderState v. Holder
Defendant was convicted by a jury, on а two-count indictment, of receiving a stolen tractor and a stolen trailer in violation of
Without detailing all the facts, we are satisfied from our examination of the recоrd that the jury could find from the State‘s proofs that the tractor in question had been stolen in Connecticut on July 24, 1973 from its owner, Ryder Truck Rentals, and that thе trailer in question had been stolen in New Jersey, on or about August 3, 1973, from its owner, T.P. Storage and Leasing Company, while it was in the custody of Thermo King, a сompany engaged in the business of repairing trailers. On August 9, 1973 the tractor and trailer were found in defendant‘s possession in Metuchen, New Jersey. Whеn questioned by the police defendant told them he had rented and obtained possession of the tractor in New York and that he had alsо rented the trailer
A distillation of defendant‘s testimоny substantiates his story to the police as to how and where he obtained the tractor and trailer. He testified to the details as to what ownership papers were given to him by a stranger and how he had utilized the tractor and trailer until apprehended in Metuchen. He denied knоwing the tractor and trailer had been stolen.
Defendant was tried under
Any person who receives or purchases a motor vehicle knowing it to have been stolen, is guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.
We turn first to the conviction concerning the tractor. Defendant contends the proofs are uncontradicted that he received the tractor in New York and, therefore, New Jersey was without jurisdiction to prosecute him under
Our holding is fortified by the provisions of
Any person who, having at any place without this state stolen the property of another, оr received such property knowing it to have been stolen, brings the same into this state, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Complaint may be made and thе indictment found and tried, and the offence may be charged to have been committed in any county into or through which the stolen property is brought.
A violation of this statute is made a misdemeanor. It reveals the legislative intent to make the receiving statute a different and more sеrious offense than the bringing of stolen motor vehicles into the State. One seeks to proscribe receiving stolen motor vehicles in New Jersey knowing them to be stolen; the other seeks to prevent bringing stolen motor vehicles into New Jersey knowing them to be stolen. It is hardly necessary to point out that there is a significant difference between “receiving” something and “possessing” it. If
We now turn to the conviction for receiving the stolen trailer. As heretofore indicated, the State‘s proofs, as well as defendant‘s admissions, clearly indicate that defendant had received the stolen trailer and first exercised dominion and control over it in New Jersey. The nature of the circumstantial proofs were so strong that the jury could readily find that defendаnt knew the trailer had been stolen when he picked it up in New Jersey. Under the circumstances, defendant‘s motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied. State v. Conyers, 58 N.J. 123 (1971); State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 (1967). Nor was the variance between the indictment and the proofs as to the date defendant received the trailer in New Jersey sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal. Defendant was neither surprised nor prejudiced.
What we have just said is dispositive of dеfendant‘s assertion that the verdict was against the weight of evidence requiring the trial judge to grant a new trial. There has not been a clear showing that a miscarriage of justice under the law took place.
Defendant further contends, as plain error, that the charge to thе jury was inadequate. Considering this charge as a whole, as we are obligated to do, it properly and fairly instructed the jury on all the elements of the cause of action for receiving the stolen trailer in New Jersey based on the evidence adduced at the trial. State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420 (1973). The faсt questions presented were appropriately left for determination by the jury. We find no error, let alone plain error.
Finally, we turn to the issue of sentence. The defendant was charged and convicted on two counts relating to separate offenses. In imposing sentеnce, the trial judge erroneously imposed but one sentence without specifying on which conviction he was acting. Separate sеntences should have been imposed on each count. State v. Green, 129 N.J. Super. 157, 167 (App. Div. 1974).
In summary, we reverse defendant‘s conviction for receiving the stolen traсtor and affirm his conviction for receiving the stolen trailer. The matter is remanded to the trial judge for resentencing on the conviction for receiving the stolen trailer. Jurisdiction is not retained.