From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lemken

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 29, 1975
346 A.2d 65 (N.J. 1975)

Opinion

Argued September 8, 1975 —

Decided September 29, 1975.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Seymour Margulies argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Brigadier and Margulies, attorneys).

Mr. Michael Graham, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).


The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division. However, with respect to defendant's stress upon the contention that at the end of the State's case there was insufficient proof to permit a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew that the decedent had not been provided a proper funeral, consonant with the itemization on Marinan's bill, we add the following.

There was no reasonable basis for the jury at that juncture of the case to suppose that Lemken could believe that anyone had authorized Marinan to conduct a proper funeral. Lemken knew that the estate of Klein had not authorized such a funeral and also, of course, that he had not either. He knew that Marinan was morgue custodian and would ordinarily provide only a pauper's funeral for a Meadowview Hospital patient. He also knew that the county had paid Marinan $500 out of Klein's hospital account for that funeral. There was no rational basis, in such circumstances, for Lemken to think that without authority from someone Marinan would lay out the substantial moneys shown on the bill for hearse, cemetery fee, pallbearers, coffin, minister, etc. There was thus, considering the foregoing, together with the other matters mentioned in the Appellate Division opinion, and giving the State the benefit of all legitimate inferences from the State's proofs, ample basis to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lemken knew when he submitted the Marinan bill to the estate that a proper funeral as represented therein had not been performed.

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, and SCHREIBER and Judge CONFORD — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. Lemken

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 29, 1975
346 A.2d 65 (N.J. 1975)
Case details for

State v. Lemken

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT v. JOHN J. LEMKEN…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 29, 1975

Citations

346 A.2d 65 (N.J. 1975)
346 A.2d 65

Citing Cases

State v. Boratto

Reliance is an essential element of this offense and their contention is sound. State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560,…

State v. Rose

In contrast to the Sixth Circuit's approach in Martin, our State Supreme Court has declined to apply…