Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDOARDO STURCHIO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1944-03-09
Citations: 131 N.J.L. 256
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDOARDO STURCHIO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDOARDO STURCHIO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted October 29, 1943
Decided March 9, 1944.
For the plaintiff in error, Ferdinand D. Masucci and Kessler & Kessler.
For the defendant in error, William A. Wachenfeld, Donal C. Fox and C. William Caruso.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review is affirmed.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court it is said: "There was plenary proof in the case from which the jury could find that Geraldine Gauthier was pregnant to the knowledge of the defendant, who, with intent to procure a miscarriage, used instruments upon her which terminated a pregnancy." The defendant-appellant at the trial insisted that cessation of pregnancy was essential to conviction for criminal abortion. We do not agree with this contention. The three essential elements required to establish guilt of the alleged offense in this case were pregnancy, intent to produce a miscarriage, and the use of an instrument or other means to produce a miscarriage. N. J. S. A. 2:105—1. The termination of pregnancy was not essential to a conviction.
Except as stated, the judgment is affirmed, on the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Hrher, Pbrskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Barberry. Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.