Court Opinion

ID: 9672947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:03:08.898321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.416249
License: Public Domain

Moran, District Judge,
concurring in result.
I do not agree with the statement that the instruction was proper. I submit that it is defective in that it assumes there was flight. This was for the jury to determine, not the judge. The judge should have defined flight, left it to the jury to determine whether there was flight, and then given the instruction quoted. This is the substance of the instruction which was approved in State v. Sullivan, 43 N. J. 209, 203 A. 2d 177.
The error did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and I am for affirmance of the judgment under the authority of section 29-2308, R. R. S. 1943.