Case ID: nj_66/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Hughes, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL LEE CLARK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Argued October 22, 1974
    Decided January 21, 1975.
    
      Mr. Howard Allen Cohen argued the cause for appellant (Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Cohen, of counsel and on the brief).
    
      Mr. E. Carl Broege argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Stanley Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Broege, of counsel).
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, 128 N. J. Super. 120.

Hughes, C. J.

(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority view and would reverse the Appellate Division and reinstate the judgment of conviction below.

The reference to the polygraph test by the State witness was inadvertent and unintended, and no question of pros-ecutorial purpose in its disclosure was involved; the quantum of evidence of guilt, in my opinion, was more than sufficient to uphold the jury’s verdict, and I see in the case no prejudicial error and no plain error. B. 2:10-2. The sentence, in the circumstances of the case, was not excessive.

Justice Hall has authorized me to say that he joins me in this opinion.

For affirmance — Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clifford — 5.

For reversal — Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Hall— 2.