unchallenged error in New Jersey

2025Therefore, "the error will be disregarded unless a reasonable doubt has been raised whether the jury came to a result that it otherwise might not have reached." Ibid. (quoting State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444, 456 (2015)).

2021"The standard has been phrased as requiring a reviewing court 'to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ); see also Branch, 182 N.J. at 353 (applying the plain error standard where a defendant fails to object to erroneously admitted evidence by determining whether the evidence is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result"); State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (reaffirming that an unchallenged error "'will be disregarded unless a reasonable doubt has been raised whether the jury came to

2025"To warrant reversal, the unchallenged error must have been 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.' " Id. at 142 (quoting R. 2:10-2).

2022"To warrant reversal, the unchallenged error must have been 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Id. at 142 (quoting R. 2:10-2).

2019An alleged unchallenged error in the jury charge is analyzed "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2019An alleged unchallenged error in the jury charge is analyzed "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2017Our Supreme Court has established that 7 A-1529-15T2 [i]n the context of jury instructions, plain error is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." [State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (quoting State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008)).] "Therefore, we may reverse only if the unchallenged error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid.

2017Our Supreme Court has established that 7 A-1529-15T2 [i]n the context of jury instructions, plain error is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." [State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (quoting State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008)).] "Therefore, we may reverse only if the unchallenged error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid.

2024"To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, A-4941-18 44 it 'must be evaluated "in light of the overall strength of the State's case."'" Clark, 251 N.J. at 287 (quoting State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)).

2024"To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)).

2024Under that standard, an unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." The possibility of an unjust result must be "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." [Id. at 287 (citations omitted) (first quoting R. 2:10-2; and then quoting State v. Melvin, 65 N.J. 1, 18-19 (1974)).] "Plain error is a high bar and constitutes 'error not properly preserved for appeal but of a magnitude dictating appellate consideration.'" State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 404 (2019

2024"The possibility of an unjust result must be 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Melvin, 65 N.J. 1, 18-19 (1974)).

2019An alleged unchallenged error in the jury charge is analyzed "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2019An alleged unchallenged error in the jury charge is analyzed "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2019We will reverse on the basis of an unchallenged error only if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Macon, 75 N.J. at 337.

2017We will reverse on the basis of an unchallenged error only if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Macon, supra, 75 N.J. at 337.

2018We will reverse on the basis of an unchallenged error only if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]" Macon, 57 N.J. at 337 .

2017We will reverse on the basis of an unchallenged error only if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Macon, supra, 57 N.J. at 337 .

2018In the context of jury instructions, plain error is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2014In the context of jury instructions, plain error is “‘[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result.’ ” Id. at 207, 943 A.2d 851 (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 , 688 A.2d 97 (1997) (citations omitted)).

2018Under that standard, "we may reverse only if the unchallenged error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-2).

2017Our Supreme Court has established that 7 A-1529-15T2 [i]n the context of jury instructions, plain error is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." [State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (quoting State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008)).] "Therefore, we may reverse only if the unchallenged error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid.

2025When considering a challenge to a jury instruction, we "read the charge as a whole, and not just the challenged portion, to determine its overall effect." A.L.A., 251 N.J. at 591; see also Baum, 224 N.J. at 159 ("The test to be applied . . . is whether the charge as a whole is misleading, or sets forth accurately and fairly the controlling principles of law." (quoting State v. Jackmon, 305 N.J.

2025When considering a challenge to a jury instruction, we "read the charge as a whole, and not just the challenged portion, to determine its overall effect." A.L.A., 251 N.J. at 591; see also Baum, 224 N.J. at 159 ("The test to be applied . . . is whether the charge as a whole is misleading, or sets forth accurately and fairly the controlling principles of law." (quoting State v. Jackmon, 305 N.J.

2025The importance of accurate jury instructions in criminal cases was highlighted by our Supreme Court in State v. Martin, 119 N.J. 2, 15 (1990).

2024Under that standard, an unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." The possibility of an unjust result must be "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." [Id. at 287 (citations omitted) (first quoting R. 2:10-2; and then quoting State v. Melvin, 65 N.J. 1, 18-19 (1974)).] "Plain error is a high bar and constitutes 'error not properly preserved for appeal but of a magnitude dictating appellate consideration.'" State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 404 (2019

2024Under that standard, an unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." The possibility of an unjust result must be "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." [Id. at 287 (citations omitted) (first quoting R. 2:10-2; and then quoting State v. Melvin, 65 N.J. 1, 18-19 (1974)).] "Plain error is a high bar and constitutes 'error not properly preserved for appeal but of a magnitude dictating appellate consideration.'" State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 404 (2019

2022A-5586-17 12 Moreover, even if defendant's incriminating statements were erroneously admitted in evidence under Sims, the unchallenged error was not "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2; see also State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 407 (2017).

2021"The standard has been phrased as requiring a reviewing court 'to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ); see also Branch, 182 N.J. at 353 (applying the plain error standard where a defendant fails to object to erroneously admitted evidence by determining whether the evidence is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result"); State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (reaffirming that an unchallenged error "'will be disregarded unless a reasonable doubt has been raised whether the jury came to