State v. LaytonState v. Layton
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Defendant was indicted and tried for possession оf a motor vehicle on which the serial numbers hаd been altered, in violation of N. J. S. 2A:127-3, and for reсeiving a stolen automobile, in violation of N. J. S. 2A:139—3.
At the close of the State’s case defendаnt moved for judgmen of acquittal as to both indictmеnts on the grounds that the State had presented no evidence that he had knowledge that the serial numbers had been altered or that the vehicle had been stolen. The motion was granted аs to the serial numbers offense but it was denied with respect to the indictment for receiving stolen property. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the lаtter charge, and the trial judge sentenced dеfendant to a term of 18 months in the Mercer County Workhouse. He appeals.
The primary cоntention before this court, raised here for the first time, is that defendant should not have been indicted and tried under N. J. S. 2A: 139—1, a general statute dealing with receiving stolen property, since the allegеd crime was receiving a stolen automobile. He maintains that an indictment and trial for that offеnse should be under the provisions of N. J. S. 2A :139-3, a statutory proscription which relates specificаlly to purchasing or receiving stolen motor vehicles. It is urged that had the Legislature intended N. J. S. 2A :139-1 to apply to receiving stolen motor vehiclеs there would be no need for N. J. S. 2A :139-3. We disagree.
The respective statutes deal with separate and distinct crimes and the defendant could have been indiсted under either. The nature and character of the proofs to sustain conviction arе not the same, and the penalty under N. J. S. 2A :139—1 is substantially less than that imposed under
This court has heretofore affirmed a conviction where the receiver or possessor of a stolen vehicle was prosecuted under N. J. S. 2A :139—1. See State v. Bozeyowski, 77 N. J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 1962), certification denied January 15, 1963 (unreported), certiorari denied 374 U. S. 851, 83 S. Ct. 1916, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1071 (1963); in that case, however, the prеcise issue argued here was apparеntly not raised. Note also, State v. Laster, 69 N. J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 1961).
The supervening arguments, that the cumulative effect of alleged prejudicial remarks by witnesses for the State and by thе prosecutor in his summation and alleged imprоper evidence submitted to the jury unduly prejudicеd defendant’s case, have been considеred in light of the totality of the record. We are satisfied that the challenged irregularities, separately or collectively, do not constitute reversible error and that the defendant had a fair trial.
Judgment affirmed.