From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Puckett

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 8, 1961
170 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1961)

Opinion

Argued March 6, 1961 —

Decided May 8, 1961.

Mr. James Dorment, Jr., argued the cause for the defendant-appellant.

Mr. Melvin P. Antell, Special Legal Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent ( Mr. Brendan T. Byrne, County Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney; Mr. Milton N. Diamond, of counsel and on the brief).


The defendant appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division affirming his conviction of unlawful possession of narcotics in violation of R.S. 24:18-4. As to the issues raised before the Appellate Division, we agree with its determination for the reasons expressed in its opinion reported in 67 N.J. Super. 365 (1960). The additional arguments advanced by the defendant on this appeal were considered and rejected by this court today in State v. Reed, 34 N.J. 554 (1961). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and SCHETTINO — 6.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. Puckett

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 8, 1961
170 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1961)
Case details for

State v. Puckett

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RALPH WESLEY PUCKETT…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: May 8, 1961

Citations

170 A.2d 437 (N.J. 1961)
170 A.2d 437

Citing Cases

State v. Sapp

Moreover, possession need not be exclusive but may be jointly exercised by two or more persons. State v.…

State v. Rajnai

Possession need not be exclusive but may be jointly exercised by two or more persons. State v. Puckett, 67…