US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

HOAG V. NEW JERSEY, 356 U. S. 464 (1958)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 356 U. S. 464 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958)

Hoag v. New Jersey

No. 40

Argued November 19, 1957

Decided May 19, 1958

356 U.S. 464


In a New Jersey State Court, petitioner was tried and acquitted on three separate indictments (joined for trial) for statutory robbery of three persons on the same occasion. Subsequently, he was indicted, tried and convicted for robbing a fourth person during the same occurrence.

Held: his conviction did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 356 U. S. 465-473.

(a) He was not put twice in jeopardy for the same crime. New Jersey construes the statute under which he was indicted as making each of the four robberies, though taking place on the same occasion, a separate offense, and nothing in the Due Process Clause prevented the State from making that construction. Pp. 356 U. S. 466-467.

(b) In the circumstances of this case, he was not deprived of due process by consecutive trials, even though the multiple offenses arose out of the same occurrence. Pp. 356 U. S. 467-470.

(c) Whether States must apply collateral estoppel in criminal trials need not be decided; because the state courts held that petitioner's acquittal did not give rise to such an estoppel, and this Court would not be justified in substituting its view as to the basis of the jury's verdict. Pp. 356 U. S. 470-472.

(d) In the circumstances of this case, he was not denied a speedy trial. P. 356 U. S. 472.

(e) The sufficiency of the evidence to support the identification of petitioner as one of the robbers is a matter solely within the province of the state courts. Pp. 356 U. S. 472-473.

21 N.J. 496, 122 A.2d 628, affirmed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 356 U. S. 465

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™