State v. Salernitano

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
99 A.2d 820, 27 N.J. Super. 537 (1953)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The criminal intent required for the crime of possessing burglar's tools can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the time, place, and manner of possession, even if the tools themselves have lawful uses.

Facts:

At about 11:00 PM on June 26, 1952, Police Officer Edward L. Zirkel observed Adolph Joseph Salernitano and Anthony Rocco Ligori with a third man in a parking lot.
Officer Zirkel overheard one of the men say the words "the beef house," which was a business located nearby across railroad tracks.
Approximately ten minutes later, Officer Zirkel encountered Salernitano and Ligori in the dark on the railroad tracks near the "beef house."
Ligori was holding a jimmy (a type of crowbar) in his hand.
A sledge hammer, a chisel, and a mismated pair of canvas gloves were found on the ground near Salernitano's feet, with another pair of black gloves at Ligori's feet.
When questioned by police, Salernitano and Ligori gave conflicting stories about their activities and their reason for being in the area.
Police found a canvas glove in the defendants' car that was the matching mate to one of the gloves found on the ground at the scene of the arrest.

Procedural Posture:

Adolph Joseph Salernitano and Anthony Rocco Ligori were indicted for possession of burglar's tools in a New Jersey trial court.
At trial, the defendants made a motion for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
A jury found Salernitano and Ligori guilty of the charge.
Following the conviction, the defendants, as appellants, appealed the ensuing judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with the State of New Jersey acting as the respondent.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the possession of tools suitable for both lawful and unlawful purposes, combined with circumstantial evidence such as being in a secluded area late at night near a potential target, providing conflicting explanations, and possessing related items like gloves, constitute sufficient proof of intent to use the tools for a burglarious purpose?

Opinions:

Majority - Eastwood, S.J.A.D.

Yes, the possession of such tools under these circumstances constitutes sufficient proof of intent. To secure a conviction for possession of burglar's tools, the State must prove three elements: (1) the tool is adapted for breaking and entering, (2) the defendant possessed it with knowledge of its character, and (3) the defendant intended to use it for a burglarious purpose. While mere possession of tools with lawful uses is not a crime, intent can be proven through circumstantial evidence. This case is distinguishable from State v. Walsh, where the defendant was merely walking on a public street with a single tool. Here, the defendants were trespassing on private property late at night in a secluded area near a commercial building they had mentioned, possessed a collection of tools suitable for burglary, had gloves, and gave conflicting, implausible explanations for their presence. The totality of these circumstances provides a sufficient basis from which a jury could legitimately infer the required criminal intent.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for proving the intent element in a prosecution for possession of burglar's tools. It establishes that intent does not require direct proof but can be inferred from a collection of suspicious circumstances surrounding the possession. The court's distinction from State v. Walsh is significant, illustrating that while mere possession is insufficient, a 'possession-plus' standard—where possession is coupled with other incriminating facts—can sustain a conviction. This case provides a roadmap for prosecutors to build cases based on circumstantial evidence, focusing on the totality of facts like time, location, behavior, and the collection of items possessed, rather than just the tools themselves.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Salernitano (1953)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"