effect of any error in New Jersey

2022Moreover, the effect of any error must be considered "in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2022To be sure, the effect of any error "must be evaluated in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2022Moreover, the effect of any error must be considered "in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2022To be sure, the effect of any error "must be evaluated in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2020A-4619-16T3 16 When reviewing any claim of error relating to a jury charge, "[t]he charge must be read as a whole in determining whether there was any error[,]" State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005), and the effect of any error must be considered "in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2020When reviewing any claim of error relating to a jury charge, "[t]he charge must be read as a whole in determining whether there was any error[,]" State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005), and the effect of any error must be considered "in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 203 N.J.

2021While an erroneous jury charge may be a "'poor candidate[ ] for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory," State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997) (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)), we nonetheless consider the effect of any error in light "of the overall strength of the State's case." Chapland, 187 N.J. at 289 .

2020While an erroneous jury charge may be a "'poor candidate[] for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory[,]" Jordan, 147 N.J. at 422–23 (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)), we nonetheless consider the effect of any error in light "of the overall strength of the State's case." Chapland, 187 N.J. at 289 .

2020However, a defendant's attorney's failure to object to jury instructions A-3722-17T4 26 "gives rise to a presumption that he did not view [the charge] as prejudicial to his client's case." State v. McGraw, 129 N.J. 68, 80 (1992).

2020However, a defendant's attorney's failure to object to jury instructions not only "gives rise to a presumption that he did not view [the charge] as prejudicial to his client's case[,]" State v. McGraw, 129 N.J. 68, 80 (1992), but is also "considered a waiver to object to the instruction on appeal." State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91, 104 (2013).

2020However, a defendant's attorney's failure to object to jury instructions not only "gives rise to a presumption that he did not view [the charge] as prejudicial to his client's case[,]" State v. McGraw, 129 N.J. 68, 80 (1992), but is also "considered a waiver to object to the instruction on appeal." State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91, 104 (2013).

2019However, defense counsel's failure to object to jury instructions not only "gives rise to a presumption that he did not view [the charge] as prejudicial to his client's case[,]" State v. McGraw, 129 N.J. 68, 80 (1992), but also is "considered a waiver to object to the instruction on appeal." State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91, 104 (2013).

2021While an erroneous jury charge may be a "'poor candidate[ ] for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory," State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997) (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)), we nonetheless consider the effect of any error in light "of the overall strength of the State's case." Chapland, 187 N.J. at 289 .

2020While an erroneous jury charge may be a "'poor candidate[] for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory[,]" Jordan, 147 N.J. at 422–23 (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)), we nonetheless consider the effect of any error in light "of the overall strength of the State's case." Chapland, 187 N.J. at 289 .

2026Jury instructions "'must be read as a whole in determining whether there was any error,' . . . and the effect of any error must be considered 'in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" Gonzalez, 444 N.J.

2021In our assessment of a challenge to a jury charge, we must read the charge "'as a whole in determining whether there was any error,' and the effect of any error must be considered 'in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J.

2021Although the inclusion of specific references to the evidence by the court during a jury charge has been deemed the "better practice" by our Supreme Court, State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 379 (1988), the failure of a trial judge to so charge the jury usually becomes of paramount importance only where conflicting testimony pointing to divergent verdicts is involved, and where the charge emphasizes only one side's version of the pertinent events.

2020We acknowledge the Court's advice to trial judges that rather than routinely reading the model charges to the jury, "the better practice" is for the judge "to mold the instruction in a manner that explains the law to the jury in the context of the material facts of the case." State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 379 (1988).

2021In addition, the failure to object signifies that "in the context of the trial[,] the [alleged] error was actually of no moment." State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 42 (2008) (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002)).

2017In addition, the failure to object signifies that "in the context of the trial[,] the [alleged] error was actually of no moment." State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 42 (2008) (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002)).

2021In addition, the failure to object signifies that "in the context of the trial[,] the [alleged] error was actually of no moment." State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 42 (2008) (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002)).

2017In addition, the failure to object signifies that "in the context of the trial[,] the [alleged] error was actually of no moment." State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 42 (2008) (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002)).

2022"Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilitation under the plain error theory.'" Adams, 194 N.J. at 207 (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2017Plain error, in the context of a jury charge, 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) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008)). 7 A-5162-14T2 Of course, in reviewing any claim of error relating to a jury charge, "[t]he charge must be read as a whole in determining whether there wa

2022Plain error, in the context of an allegedly improper jury charge, "requires demonstration of legal impropriety of the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing co urt and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." Ibid. (quoting State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007)).

2020"There is no reversible error 'where the charge, considered as a whole, adequately conveys the law and is unlikely to confuse or mislead the jury, even though part of the charge, standing alone, might be incorrect.'" Mogull v. CB Commercial Real Estate Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 464 (2000) (quoting Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235, 254 (1996)).

2020"There is no reversible error 'where the charge, considered as a whole, adequately conveys the law and is unlikely to confuse or mislead the jury, even though part of the charge, standing alone, might be incorrect.'" Mogull v. CB Commercial Real Estate Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 464 (2000) (quoting Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235, 254 (1996)).

2020When reviewing a trial court's response to a jury question, we must determine whether the court "erred in its response and, if so, whether that 'error undermines our confidence that the deliberative process produced a just result and the conviction must be reversed.'" State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519, 537 (2007) (quoting State v. Parsons, 270 N.J.

2020These jury charges must provide a "comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must determine, including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may find." Dubak v. Burdette Tomlin Mem'l Hosp., 233 N.J.

2020When reviewing a trial court's response to a jury question, we must determine whether the court "erred in its response and, if so, whether that 'error undermines our confidence that the deliberative process produced a just result and the conviction must be reversed.'" State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519, 537 (2007) (quoting State v. Parsons, 270 N.J.

2019As part of that analysis, we "consider the effect of any error in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Baker, 400 N.J.

2017Moreover, the failure to "interpose a timely objection constitutes strong evidence that the error belatedly raised [] was actually of no moment." State v. White, 326 N.J.

2017Plain error, in the context of a jury charge, 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) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008)). 7 A-5162-14T2 Of course, in reviewing any claim of error relating to a jury charge, "[t]he charge must be read as a whole in determining whether there wa