Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIFORD T. WILLIAMSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1959-10-26
Citations: 31 N.J. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIFORD T. WILLIAMSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 16–23

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIFORD T. WILLIAMSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued September 14, 1959
Decided October 26, 1959.
Mr. William C. Brudniclc argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent (Mr. Guy W. Oalissi, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney).
Mr. Julius E. Kramer argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Messrs. Chandless, Weller & Kramer, attorneys).

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
The order appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge Conford for the majority of the Appellate Division. The opinion is reported in 54 N. J. Super. 170 (App. Div. 1959).
Eor purposes of emphasis, we consider it advisable to add our unqualified approval to the observation in the opinion that the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars. Moreover, it seems probable that if the charge had been made more specific by that means, no appeal would have been allowed from the interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss the indictment.
Even though an indictment sets forth in general terms sufficient facts to meet the requirement for a statement of the essential elements of the offense and so cannot be dismissed on motion, a defendant is entitled as of right to a more particular specification if on a fair appraisal he may be unprepared for or surprised by the inculpatory proof at the trial. Cf. State v. Jenkins, 136 N. J. L. 112 (Sup. Ct. 1947), error dismissed 137 N. J. L. 209 (E. & A. 1948); State v. Bove, 98 N. J. L. 350 (Sup. Ct. 1922), affirmed 98 N. J. L. 576 (E. & A. 1923). He is entitled to be furnished with information as to the specific nature of the offense charged with such clarity that he can prepare for trial without fear of surprise. The liberty and reputation of a defendant are in jeopardy and he' should be given every reasonable opportunity and facility within the rules for the preparation of his defense. This does not mean that the State must disclose in detail the proof it expects to offer at the trial to establish guilt. But it does signify that the particular transactions which the prosecution asserts constituted misconduct in office should be revealed to him. And the need for such information obviously is more pressing in situations where much of the factual data is in books and records in the possession of the State. Singer v. United States, 58 F. 2d 74 (3 Cir. 1932).