State v. Murray, 165 A.2d 161 (N.J. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Murray, 165 A.2d 161 (N.J. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Blanchard, 235 A.2d 913 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967)
How cited ↗
Cited for
33 N.J. at 397 Evaluating trial court's cautionary instructions regarding statement2 citing cases
  • State v. Blanchard, 235 A.2d 913 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967).published
    Cf. State v. Murray, 33 N.J. 393, 397 (1960); State v. Tassiello, 39 N.J. 282, 296 (1963); State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572, 585 (1955); State v. Rosenberg, 37 N.J.
  • State v. Bruce, 178 A.2d 233 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1962).published
    How can we expect to give every detail? * * *" (Italics ours) While the trial court's cautionary instructions with reference to the Foley statement were proper, State v. Murray, 33 N.J. 393, 397 (1960), the motion to delete the challenged…
33 N.J. at 398 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • State v. Homer, 206 A.2d 905 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1965).published
    See, in *362 particular, State v. Tassiello, 39 N.J. 282, 296-8 (1963); State v. Murray, 33 N.J. 393, 398 (1960); State v. Young, 86 N.J.
  • State v. Travers, 174 A.2d 747 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961).published
    It was there held: "It is only necessary to say that such statements were received with scrupulous care by the judge and with equal care limited in their effect as applicable only to the one making them." Our Supreme Court recently conside…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Robert A. Murray, Defendant-Appellant
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Nov 7, 1960.
Published opinion
165 A.2d 161
1960 N.J. LEXIS 167
Mr. John S. Bender argued the cause for the appellant., Mr. C. William, Caruso, Assistant Prosecutor argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Brendan T. Byrne, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Per Curiam.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Sullivan in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Erancis, Proctor, Hall and Sciiettiito — 5.

For reversal — None.