Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2020A In considering the failure to sua sponte charge the felony murder defense, the Court in State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 86-87 (2010), determined that the A-1320-17T4 18 same standard that is applied when a defendant hasn't requested instructions on lesser-included charges applies to a defendant's failure to request the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder. 2019After we affirmed the convictions and sentence, id. at 27, the Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for certification, "limited to the issue of whether the trial court's failure to instruct the jury regarding the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder constituted plain error." State v. Walker, 201 N.J. 146 (2009). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2010He asserts that the four prongs of the statutory defense should be analyzed at the time a defendant ceases active participation in the crime, which is consistent with the Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Smith, 322 N.J.Super. 385, 397 , 731 A.2d 77 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 489 , 744 A.2d 1211 (1999), and that he presented evidence to satisfy each prong of the defense. 2010He asserts that the four prongs of the statutory defense should be analyzed at the time a defendant ceases active participation in the crime, which is consistent with the Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Smith, 322 N.J.Super. 385, 397 , 731 A.2d 77 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 489 , 744 A.2d 1211 (1999), and that he presented evidence to satisfy each prong of the defense. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Sheika
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 250-51 , 766 A.2d 1151 . 2010Id. at 250-51 , 766 A.2d 1151 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Turay
neutral
2 sentences2010We granted defendant’s Petition for Certification limited to the issue of whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder constituted plain error. 201 N.J. 146 , 988 A.2d 566 (2009). 2010We granted defendant’s Petition for Certification “limited to the issue of whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder constituted plain error.” 201 N.J. 146 , 988 A.2d 566 (2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 22, 573 A.2d 1359 (citing II Criminal Law Revision Commission, Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision § 2C:ll-3 commentary at 156-58 (1971)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Underwood
green
2 sentences1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App 1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Jasuilewicz
green
2 sentences1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App 1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App 1996The general rule is that it is plain error for a court to omit a charge concerning a statutory affirmative defense that has been established by evidence in the case, “regardless of what requests counsel may make.” State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 287-288 , 550 A.2d 117 (1988) (regarding the statutory defense of diminished capacity); State v. Underwood, 286 N.J.Super. 129, 138 , 668 A.2d 447 (App.Div.1995) (concerning the statutory defense to theft that the property was received with a purpose of returning it to the true owner); State v. Jasvilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 574-575 , 501 A.2d 583 (App | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Bzura
neutral
1 sentence1996While we have found no case specifically treating the omission of a claim of right defense as plain error, in State v. Bzura, 261 N.J.Super. 602 , 619 A.2d 647 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 443 , 627 A.2d 1147 (1993), we held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a specific jury charge concerning claim of right because the trial court’s instructions had specifically addressed the defense’s claim of right theory. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Bzura
green
2 sentences1996While we have found no case specifically treating the omission of a claim of right defense as plain error, in State v. Bzura, 261 N.J.Super. 602 , 619 A.2d 647 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 443 , 627 A.2d 1147 (1993), we held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a specific jury charge concerning claim of right because the trial court’s instructions had specifically addressed the defense’s claim of right theory. 1996While we have found no case specifically treating the omission of a claim of right defense as plain error, in State v. Bzura, 261 N.J.Super. 602 , 619 A.2d 647 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 443 , 627 A.2d 1147 (1993), we held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a specific jury charge concerning claim of right because the trial court’s instructions had specifically addressed the defense’s claim of right theory. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1995Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). 1995Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.