State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Frank De Stasio, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the conviction and sentence of the defendant for bookmaking, holding that the prosecutor's opening remarks did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self‑incrimination, that the evidence satisfied the statutory elements of the offense without requiring a tangible record of bets, and that the administrative directive assigning sentencing to a different judge was permissible. The Court found no constitutional error in the sentencing procedure. Justice Jacobs, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the result but criticized the directive as an improper delegation of sentencing authority.