State v. Spano

Pee Cubiam.

We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 128 N. J. Super. 90 (1973). However, we deem it necessary to elaborate upon one ground of appeal as to which the Appellate Division said it was “deeply disturbed” and which it forcefully criticized but which was not the basis for its reversal. Unless we condemn such obvious error and unfairness on the part of a State’s attorney, our silence may be interpreted as actual condonation. In our opinion, the following prejudicial statement alone is sufficient to warrant a reversal of the conviction and…