Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. BRICKER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-01-18
Citations: 99 N.J.L. 520
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. BRICKER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. BRICKER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued November 22, 1923
Decided January 18, 1924.
A dying declaration, to be admissible in evidence, does not depend upon what the people about the declarant thought of her condition, but upon what she herself thought of and expressed concerning it, provided such statement meets the requirements of the law.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 98 N. J. L. 58.
For the plaintiff in error, Eugene G. Schwvnghammer.
For the defendant in error, Louis A. Repetto, prosecutor of the pleas, and Glarence L. Cole.

Opinion:
PEE CüElAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Tronchará in the Supreme Court.
There is, however, something in the body of the opinion and in syllabus 4 which ought to he noticed, lest it might in the future be thought part of the law of dying declarations. The language is: "Both [statements] were made when all about her thought she [Irene Michaelson] was dying, although she was conscious and mentally alert."
To be admissible in evidence a dying declaration does not depend upon what the people about the dying person thought of her condition. It is what the declarant herself thought of it, as expressed elsewhere in the opinion.
For affirmance. — The Chancellor, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Heppenheimer, Aokerson, Yan Buskirk, Clark, JJ. 11.
Fo reversal — None.