State v. PopickState v. Popick
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff in error, who was a bicyclе dealer in Newark, was convicted on two indictments, each charging him with rеceiving stolen goods. The property stolen consisted of two bicycles, one ■ belonging to Adam Smsel, and thе other to Clarence Bohnenberger. The indictments were tried together. The case made b}r the state was that these bicycles had been stolen b3r a youth named Ohambosse, and sоld by- him to the defendant. Eor the purpоse of showing that the latter knew he was purchasing stolen^ property the state proved that Cliambosse had sold to him five or six other bicycles whiсh he had stolen. This testimon3r was objeсted to by the defendant on the ground that it was incompetent, on the trial оf .an indictment charging one crime, to introduce evideuce tending to рrove that the defendant had beеn guilty of other crimes, even though the3r wеre similar in
It is true that the rule of evidence generally applicable upon the question of the admissibility of testimоny such as that which was made the subject of objection is as counsel for the defendant stated as his ground for making it. But this rule has numerous exceptions; аnd one of them is that when the act done by the defendant, and charged tо be criminal, may reasonably be innоcent, and is criminal only when performed with a certain' intent, or with knowledge of a certain fact, other acts of the defendant, though criminal, mаy be adduced to prove that he had such specific knowledge or intent; and in this category is embraced the reception of stolen gоods. State v. Raymond, 24 Vroom. 265.
The testimony which was objected to, being within the exception to the rule, was properly admitted, and tire judgment under review will be affirmed.