green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.9 score
“because defendant did not object to the challenged instruction he has waived any challenge to the instruction on appeal. r. 1:7-2. this court may reverse only if it finds 'plain error.' r. 2:10-2.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Thomas
because defendant did not object to the challenged instruction he has waived any challenge to the instruction on appeal. r. 1:7-2. this court may reverse only if it finds 'plain error.' r. 2:10-2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Burno-Taylor
Because the right to remain silent is so fundamental, an equivocal assertion of the right to remain silent should "be interpreted in a light most favorable to the defendant." State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 63 , 695 A. 2d 1301 (1997), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 493 *735 (1999). [2] In that posture, the officers could do no more than to attempt to clarify his position, and could not proceed to their extended attempts to persuade defendant to waive his Miranda rights and agree to speak to them.
cited
Cited "see"
Marx v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.
See State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30 , 695 A. 2d 1301 (1997), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Fortin
(2×)
State v. Josephs, supra, 174 N.J. at 98 , 803 A.2d at 1106 ; see State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 82 , 695 A.2d 1301, 1328 (1997) (Chew I) (noting that defendant must establish “ ‘clear’ ” or “ ‘obvious’ ” error affecting “ ‘substantial rights’ ” to establish plain error) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508, 519 (1993)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cryan
See State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 66 , 695 A. 2d 1301 (1997), cert. denied, sub nom., Chew v. New Jersey, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1999). *648 We thus hold that unsolicited statements made by defendant while in police custody and without the benefit of Miranda warnings were properly admitted into evidence because they were not the product of police interrogation or its functional equivalent.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pillar
See State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 63 , 695 A. 2d 1301 (1997), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1999); State v. Johnson, 120 N.J. 263, 284 , 576 A. 2d 834 (1990); State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113, 120 , 477 A. 2d 1265 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Fredrick K. Koch v. Town of Brattleboro, Vermont, Sherwood D. Lake, Jr., and John Doe, Unidentified Brattleboro Police Officer
See Horne v. Coughlin III, 191 F.3d 244 (2d Cir.1999). cert. denied 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 594 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
See In re Treco, 240 F.3d 148 , 161— 162 (2d Cir.2001) (deciding on securitization rather than constitutional takings ground because "in addressing a constitutional question whose answer would have no effect on the outcome of the case, we would have violated the 'fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint [that] requires ... courts [to] avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them’ ”) (quoting Home v. Coughlin, 178 F.3d 603, 605 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 594 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999) (quoting Lyng v. Northw…
cited
Cited "see"
Tellier v. Fields
See Horne v. Coughlin, 155 F.3d 26 (2d Cir.1998), adhered to on reh'g, 178 F.3d 603 , as amended, 191 F.3d 244, 248-49 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 594 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Tellier v. Fields
See Horne v. Coughlin, 155 F.3d 26 (2d Cir.1998), adhered to on reh’g, 178 F.3d 603 , as amended, 191 F.3d 244, 248-49 , c ert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 594 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Tellier v. Fields
See Horne v. Coughlin, 155 F.3d 26 (2d Cir.1998), adhered to on reh’g, 178 F.3d 603 , as amended, 191 F.3d 244, 248-49 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1052 , 120 S.Ct. 594 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morton
(2×)
The defendant must show that his “death sentence is aberrational.” Bey IV, supra, 137 N.J. at 352 , 645 A.2d 685 ; see State v. Chew, 159 N.J. 183, 195 , 731 A.2d 1070 (Chew II), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999); State v. Harvey, 159 N.J. 277, 289 , 731 A.2d 1121 (1999) (Harvey III), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 811 , 145 L.Ed.2d 683 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Johnson
(2×)
In Purcell, we joined several other jurisdictions3 in declining to follow the Davis standard as a matter of our state’s constitutional law, endorsing instead the “stop and clarify” approach that a majority of jurisdictions, including Connecticut, fol- 3 See, e.g., Steckel v. State, 711 A.2d 5 , 10–11 (Del. 1998); State v. Hoey, 77 Haw. 17, 36 , 881 P.2d 504 (1994); State v. Risk, 598 N.W.2d 642 , 648–49 (Minn. 1999); Downey v. State, 144 So. 3d 146 , 151–52 (Miss. 2014); see also State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30 , 62–63, 695 A.2d 1301 (1997) (adopting stop and clarify approach based on…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Feaster
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Chew, 159 N.J. 183, 211-20 , 731 A.2d 1070 (Chew II), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.Ed.2d 493 (1999); Loftin II, 157 N.J. at 336-45 , 724 A.2d 129 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Proportionality Review Project (II)
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Chew (Chew II), 159 N.J. 183, 210-14 , 731 A.2d 1070 (1999) (considering nonstatutory factors to compare defendants’ culpability in precedent-seeking approach to individual proportionality review), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 593 , 145 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lukens
v.
Oregon State Office for Services to Children and Families
v.
Oregon State Office for Services to Children and Families
No. 99-6641.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 6, 1999.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of New Jersey (1)
Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.