Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: The admission in evidence of Vega's statement of March 2, 1954.

Text: On March 2, 1954, following his apprehension by the police, Vega made a statement to them which was transcribed by a court stenographer. When that statement was spread upon the record, not only was there no objection to it by his counsel, but it was specifically conceded that it was voluntarily made. Counsel said: I have just spoken to the defendant Gabriel Vega and he informs me that there will be no objection to the introduction of that as to the voluntary part of it. On appeal, counsel reverses his stand and now says the statement should not have been admitted. Not having been advanced below, it cannot be argued here. Schwartz v. Rothman, 1 N.J. 206 (1948); Fischetto Paper Mill Supply, Inc., v. Quigley Co., Inc., 3 N.J. 149 (1949); State v. Pierce, 4 N.J. 252 (1950); State v. Taylor, 5 N.J. 474 (1950). Nevertheless, relaxing our rule in this respect and giving the point its full worth, we note the defendant first urges the facts admitted do not constitute guilty participation or aiding or abetting in the robbery committed. We cannot agree. His confession was sufficient proof of his guilt and raised a question requiring submission to the jury. Next it is said: Since this statement was never signed and not acknowledged to anyone in authority to be a true statement, it was therefore absolutely inadmissible, citing State v. Cleveland, 6 N.J. 316 (1951); Roesel v. State, 62 N.J.L. 216 ( E. & A. 1898). These cases do not support the view for which they are submitted. The confession was oral. It was taken stenographically by an official court stenographer. The State did not offer a transcript of the confession, but the transcriber of it testified orally from his shorthand notes, such testimony being clearly competent and admissible. In State v. Cleveland, supra, 6 N.J., at page 329, we said: We think the rule is clearly spelled out in these cases that until the statement is signed or its correctness acknowledged in some fashion by the defendant, it constitutes merely a memorandum of what was said and is inadmissible in evidence. In such cases, the State is limited to the oral testimony of witnesses who were present when the statement was made. They may, for the purpose of refreshing their recollections, where necessary, refer to notes made at the time by them, or under their supervision. In the case sub judice, although the statement was not signed, its correctness was specifically acknowledged by the defendant, who had been made fully aware of its contents and import, and the treatment accorded the evidence was in strict compliance with the rule laid down in the Cleveland case and we are unable to ascertain error in its admission. The test is whether the confession given, under the circumstances, was voluntarily made. Its competency is primarily for the trial judge, and the weight to be given it is determined by the jury. The determination of the trial judge will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal where there is sufficient evidence to support it. State v. Cole, 136 N.J.L. 606 ( E. & A. 1948); State v. Auld, 2 N.J. 426, 435 (1949); State v. Pierce, 4 N.J. 252 (1950); State v. Cooper, 10 N.J. 532 (1952); State v. Grillo, 11 N.J. 173 (1952); State v. Walker, 15 N.J. 485 (1954); State v. Beard, 16 N.J. 50 (1954). As to the insistence that the confession to be admitted into evidence must be made to one in authority, our law is quite to the contrary. State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137, 139-140 ( Sup. Ct. 1904), specifically provides that a confession may be taken by anyone. Another objection to this evidence was that the admission was brought out in answer to a question by the justice which he had no right to ask. But the settled rule is that a confession is admissible, though it is elicited by questions, whether put to the prisoner by a magistrate, officer, or private person, and the form of the question is immaterial to the admissibility, even though it assumes the prisoner's guilt. 1 Greenl. Ev. 229; Roesel v. State, supra .