# State v. Mucci

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · December 9, 1957 · 25 N.J. 423

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754715

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dominick Mucci, Defendant-Appellant, and John Doe, Also Known as “artie,” Defendant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** December 9, 1957
- **Citations:** 25 N.J. 423; 136 A.2d 761; 1957 N.J. LEXIS 162
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weintraub
- **Judges:** Heher, Weintraub
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754715

## Opinion text

Weintraub, C. J.
(concurring). I agree the trial court properly restricted the proof purportedly offered to support defendant’s alibi, and this for the reason that the offer had no probative force. None of the witnesses could place defendant at the trailer camp at any of the times the State’s witnesses placed him elsewhere. As I read the record, the trial judge stated his ruling did not apply to testimony which would either directly or by fair inference clash with the State’s case. Even before us, counsel for defendant was unable to say that any witness he would have produced could thus have furthered the inquiry.
But I question the wisdom of enunciating a broad principle that one charged with crime may be limited with respect to the number of witnesses he may produce as to an}^ fact however vital the fact may be, even with the caveat of the majority opinion that “Care must be exercised to avoid an undue intrusion upon the substantial right of the accused in a criminal case to a fair trial.” At the moment I cannot conceive of a situation in which I would approve of a limitation with respect to a substantial fact which the State asserts or will not concede, and hence I would await a concrete set of facts before venturing agreement or disagreement with the abstract proposition. I am sure that in any event the situations in which that course would be upheld would be extremely rare. The issue thus seems to me to be virtually academic at best; and if this appraisal is correct, the adoption of the broad proposition, unanchored to luminative facts, is but an invitation to trial error.
In all other respects I join in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754715. Public record. Not legal advice.