Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialverdictmisdemeanor
plaintiffstatutemisdemeanorcommon law

Related Cases

Burke v. Commonwealth, 506 S.W.3d 307
View Case »
People v. Botkin, 9 Cal.App. 244, 98 P. 861
View Case »
Gut v. State of Minnesota, 76 U.S. 35, 1869 WL 11595, 19 L.Ed. 573, 9 Wall. 35
View Case »
Grooms v. State, 357 So.2d 292
View Case »
Garcia v. People, 503 P.3d 135, 2022 CO 6
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State v. Blechman, 135 N.J.L. 99, 10 Abbotts 99, 50 A.2d 152

Facts

Samuel Blechman was indicted for counseling George Polos to set fire to a dwelling house in Hackensack, New Jersey, with the intent to defraud the insurers. The indictment charged that this act was in violation of New Jersey law, which classifies such counseling as a high misdemeanor. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict, and although there were some procedural deficiencies in the indictment, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

Plaintiff-in-error challenges what is said to be a judgment of conviction upon an indictment charging that on October 11, 1944, he did ‘counsel’ one George Polos to set fire to a certain dwelling house in the City of Hackensack, with intent to prejudice and defraud the insurers thereof against loss or damage by fire, in contravention of R.S. 2:109-4, N.J.S.A.

Issue

Did the court err in convicting Blechman for counseling another to commit arson, given the argument that the statute requires an actual burning of the property?

it is urged at the outset that such is not an offense denounced by the cited statute unless the wrongful act thus counseled is done, and the insured property is actually burned.

Rule

The statute classifies as a high misdemeanor the counseling or solicitation of another to set fire to or burn any insured building with intent to defraud the insurer, regardless of whether the act was completed.

It plainly classifies as a high misdemeanor the counseling or solicitation of another to set fire to or burn any insured building, ship or vessel, or goods, wares, merchandise or other chattels, with intent to prejudice or defraud the insurer; and in this regard the statute is primarily declaratory of the common law.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the solicitation itself constitutes a substantive crime, independent of whether the solicited act was carried out. The court noted that the intent to commit the crime and the act of solicitation are sufficient for a conviction under the statute, and that the evidence presented at trial supported the conclusion that Blechman had the requisite intent.

The solicitation constitutes a substantive crime in itself, and not an abortive attempt to perpetrate the crime solicited. It falls short of an attempt, in the legal sense, to commit the offense solicited.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt for counseling another to commit arson.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that Blechman's actions constituted a crime under the statute, and the evidence supported the conviction.

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that Blechman's actions constituted a crime under the statute, and the evidence supported the conviction.

You must be