Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: As to Vega.

Text: Vega, the State insists, was the originator of the criminal scheme which resulted so unfortunately for all concerned. But his counsel not only denies this but says the verdict as to him is contrary to the evidence and should be set aside. To subscribe to such a conclusion we would have to allot complete verity to the defendant's denial and foreclose ourselves to the other testimony in the voluminous record presented. It means the elimination of the most material and important evidence emanating from the witness Calavira, who was approached on three different occasions by Vega to join in the criminal endeavor. It means the eradication of the testimony of Alonzo, William and Emma Suggs, including his use of Alonzo's car and his threat, dripping with guilt, exhorting the witnesses not to testify truthfully. It means ignoring the testimony of the witness Flores, who saw Vega with the other defendants at the scene of the crime the night before when they apparently all thought the victim was good for shooting. It means casting out the implications of the other defendants as to what actually occurred and the testimony of others who appeared for the State. If these concessions were all made, there would still remain Vega's confession which, we have already decided, was sufficient unto itself to create a question of fact to be decided by a jury. The record, from our study, abundantly supports the charge made against this defendant and amply justifies the jury's verdict of guilty. Our law is well settled that a verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it clearly appears that it is the result of mistake, passion, prejudice or partiality. State v. Cox, 128 N.J.L. 108 ( E. & A. 1942); State v. Monia, 132 N.J.L. 91 ( Sup. Ct. 1944); State v. Lederman, 112 N.J.L. 366 ( E. & A. 1934); State v. Dworecki, 124 N.J.L. 219 ( E. & A. 1940); State v. MacLean, 135 N.J.L. 491 ( Sup. Ct. 1947); State v. Treficanto, supra ; State v. Hauptmann, 115 N.J.L. 412 ( E. & A. 1935); State v. Cole, 136 N.J.L. 606 ( E. & A. 1948); State v. Cordasco, 2 N.J. 189 (1949); State v. Pierce, 4 N.J. 252 (1950); State v. Goodman, 9 N.J. 569 (1952); State v. Peterson, 10 N.J. 155 (1952); State v. Cooper, supra ; State v. Bunk, supra ; State v. Beard, supra ; State v. Monahan, 16 N.J. 83 (1954); State v. Roscus, supra . Some of the matters presented have not sufficient substance requiring specific disposition, but we have examined the lengthy record thoroughly and have had little difficulty concluding that the trial as to the factual basis was full, fair and impartial, while legally the defendants' interests were fully protected. The court's rulings were in accord with our recognized principles firmly established by our decisional law, and the constitutional privileges of the defendants were constantly recognized. We perceive no error in the judgment below and it is accordingly affirmed as to each defendant. For affirmance  Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices HEHER, OLIPHANT, WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS and BRENNAN  7. For reversal  None.