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.
29 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 13 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. Cottogreen2 sentences2022When the trial court fails to issue an identification instruction, "[t]he determination of plain error depends on the strength and quality of the State's corroborative evidence rather than on whether defendant's misidentification argument is convincing." State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 326 (2005). 7 Following the Court's decision in State v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 234-35 (2019), the model jury charge was revised. 2021A trial court must provide an identification instruction if "identification is a 'key issue.'" State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 325 (2005) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 291 (1981)). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Salaamgreen2 sentences2024While it is possible that the corroborative evidence against a defendant may be sufficiently strong that the failure to give an identification instruction does not constitute plain A-1653-21 25 error, State v. Salaam, 225 N.J. 2020We described defendant's case as "squarely one of misidentification" and noted "it is possible that the corroborative evidence against a defendant may be sufficiently strong that the failure to give an identification instruction does not constitute plain error." Ibid. (citing State v. Salaam, 225 N.J. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2021A trial court must provide an identification instruction if "identification is a 'key issue.'" State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 325 (2005) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 291 (1981)). 2019In Green, the Court determined that identification was a key issue requiring an identification instruction where the defendant was unknown to the victim, the crime was committed in the dark, the victim's description of the perpetrator conflicted with defendant's physical characteristics, there were no other corroborating witnesses, and defendant challenged the identification at trial. 86 N.J. at 291 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2024After briefly describing the circumstances giving rise to the shooting, the court noted defendant had satisfied the threshold for a hearing on the admissibility of the out-of-court identifications because the State was unable to locate the recordings of the photo-array identification procedures, see State A-3437-21 5 v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 228-29 (2019), and that defendant therefore bore the burden of demonstrating a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification to bar admission of the identification under the standard directed by our Supreme Court in Henderson, 208 N.J. at 2 2022When the trial court fails to issue an identification instruction, "[t]he determination of plain error depends on the strength and quality of the State's corroborative evidence rather than on whether defendant's misidentification argument is convincing." State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 326 (2005). 7 Following the Court's decision in State v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 234-35 (2019), the model jury charge was revised. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2026Moreover, we stated, "[w]hile it is possible that A-3699-23 12 the corroborative evidence against a defendant may be sufficiently strong that the failure to give an identification instruction does not constitute plain error . . . . as a matter of general procedure a model identification charge should be given in every case in which identification is a legitimate issue." Id. at 561 (internal citation omitted). 2020We described defendant's case as "squarely one of misidentification" and noted "it is possible that the corroborative evidence against a defendant may be sufficiently strong that the failure to give an identification instruction does not constitute plain error." Ibid. (citing State v. Salaam, 225 N.J. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2026In State v. Henderson, our Supreme Court addressed pre-trial out-of-court identifications. 208 N.J. 208, 222-24 (2011). 2024After briefly describing the circumstances giving rise to the shooting, the court noted defendant had satisfied the threshold for a hearing on the admissibility of the out-of-court identifications because the State was unable to locate the recordings of the photo-array identification procedures, see State A-3437-21 5 v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 228-29 (2019), and that defendant therefore bore the burden of demonstrating a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification to bar admission of the identification under the standard directed by our Supreme Court in Henderson, 208 N.J. at 2 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sanchez-Medinagreen2 sentences2021By contrast, in Sanchez-Medina, the Court held that the State did not present enough corroborating evidence to excuse the trial court's failure to deliver an identification instruction. 231 N.J. at 469 . 2018The court's identification instruction otherwise contained all the pertinent portions of the Model Charge, including that "[t]he burden of proving the identity of the person who committed the crime is upon the State," and that "the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is the person who committed the crime." Model Charge, at 1; see State 33 A-4076-15T3 v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 326-27 (2005); cf. State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468-49 (2018) (reversing where the court failed to give any instructions on identification). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2019State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008). 2017Adams, supra, 194 N.J. at 207 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Herreragreen2 sentences2018In that regard, you may consider everything that was done . . . by law enforcement . . . during the identification process." Finally, the court instructed the jurors that they were "also free to consider any other factor, based on the evidence . . . , that you consider relevant to your determination whether the identifications were reliable." Thus, under the trial court's identification instruction, the jury was able to consider whether showing the witness a single photo was "a suggestive procedure." It is a "commonsense notion that one-on-one showups are inherently suggestive" and "by definit 2007In the absence of such a record, and in light of our consistent application of federal constitutional precedent in deciding the admissibility of identification evidence, we decline to adopt a new standard under our state constitution. [Id. at 501, 902 A.2d 177 (majority opinion).] In this case as well, defendant did not challenge the current identification standard that allows the unnecessary use of highly suggestive identification procedures such as the showup. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garrongreen2 sentences2026Finally, we stress that even where defendant relies exclusively on an identification defense for strategic considerations, "[t]he public interest in a correct verdict based on the evidence must trump the partisan strategic maneuvering of both the State and the defendant." Garron, 177 N.J. at 180 . 2026Finally, we stress that even where defendant relies exclusively on an identification defense for strategic considerations, "[t]he public interest in a correct verdict based on the evidence must trump the partisan strategic maneuvering of both the State and the defendant." Garron, 177 N.J. at 180. | 1 | 1 |
Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp.green1 sentence2026See Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163, 193 (1998) ("Whistleblower claims based on constitutional provisions, or on relatively unknown statutory or regulatory enactments, would be restricted unreasonably if their success were conditioned on the plaintiff's proof that he or she was aware specifically of the relevant source of public policy at the time of objection to the employer's practice."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baileygreen1 sentence2022We would consider whether the failure to give the instruction was invited error given defense counsel's statement to the judge that the instruction was not relevant, see State v. Bailey, 231 N.J. 474, 490 (2018), and, if not invited error, whether it was plain error, considering "the strength and quality of the State's corroborative evidence rather than . . . whether defendant's misidentification argument is convincing." Cotto, 182 N.J. at 32 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Raymond Daniels(073504)green1 sentence2022We consider the arguments, recognizing that "[a]ppropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential for a fair trial." State v. Daniels, 224 N.J. 168, 180 (2016) (citing State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 387 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Savagegreen1 sentence2022We consider the arguments, recognizing that "[a]ppropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential for a fair trial." State v. Daniels, 224 N.J. 168, 180 (2016) (citing State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 387 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGrawgreen1 sentence2019See State v. McGraw, 129 N.J. 68, 80 (1992) (finding that trial counsel's acceptance of the charge drafted by the court indicates that counsel did not view the alleged error on appeal as prejudicial to the defense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gainesgreen1 sentence2019In State v. Gaines, we found that the failure to provide an identification instruction did not require reversal because the two eyewitnesses knew the defendant prior to the aggravated manslaughter for which he was convicted, they both gave statements identifying the defendant, and "[t]heir independent identifications . . . were not dependent upon their ability to observe and recall physical features and characteristics of a person who was a stranger to them." 377 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2018See State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 46-47 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Parkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dzwonar v. McDevitt
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, "[s]atisfaction of the identification requirement enables the trial court to 'make a threshold determination that there is a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and [the] law or public policy identified by the court or the plaintiff.'" Id. at 542 (quoting Dzwonar, 177 N.J. at 464 ). 2019Satisfaction of the identification requirement enables the trial court to "make a threshold determination that there is a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and [the] law or public policy identified by the court or the plaintiff." Id. at 464 , 828 A.2d 893 . | 2 | 2019–2021 |
James Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc. (072466)
green
2 sentences2019In short, the identification requirement assists trial courts in "distinguish[ing] an employee's objection to, or reporting of, an employer's illegal or unethical conduct from a routine dispute in the workplace regarding the relative merits of internal policies and procedures," Hitesman , 218 N.J. at 31 , 93 A.3d 306 (citing Dzwonar , 177 N.J. at 467 -69 , 828 A.2d 893 ), and thus helps in the weeding out of those cases that only "concern[ ] the most trivial or benign employee complaints," id. at 32, 93 A.3d 306 (quoting Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc. , 164 N.J. 598 , 613-14, 754 A.2d 544 (2000) 2019In short, the identification requirement assists trial courts in "distinguish[ing] an employee's objection to, or reporting of, an employer's illegal or unethical conduct from a routine dispute in the workplace regarding the relative merits of internal policies and procedures," Hitesman , 218 N.J. at 31 , 93 A.3d 306 (citing Dzwonar , 177 N.J. at 467 -69 , 828 A.2d 893 ), and thus helps in the weeding out of those cases that only "concern[ ] the most trivial or benign employee complaints," id. at 32, 93 A.3d 306 (quoting Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc. , 164 N.J. 598 , 613-14, 754 A.2d 544 (2000) | 2 | 2019–2021 |
State v. Edmonds
green
2 sentences2000Moreover, except for the two cases cited by defendant, State v. Edmonds, 293 N.J.Super. 113 , 679 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1996), certif. denied, 148 N.J. 459 , 690 A.2d 606 (1997), and State v. Malloy, 324 N.J.Super. 525 , 736 A.2d 532 (App.Div.1999), none of the decisions applying Green’s identification instruction has required that instruction to include comments on perceived weaknesses in the State’s evidence. 2000Moreover, except for the two cases cited by defendant, State v. Edmonds, 293 N.J.Super. 113 , 679 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1996), certif. denied, 148 N.J. 459 , 690 A.2d 606 (1997), and State v. Malloy, 324 N.J.Super. 525 , 736 A.2d 532 (App.Div.1999), none of the decisions applying Green’s identification instruction has required that instruction to include comments on perceived weaknesses in the State’s evidence. | 2 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Malloy
green
2 sentences2000Moreover, except for the two cases cited by defendant, State v. Edmonds, 293 N.J.Super. 113 , 679 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1996), certif. denied, 148 N.J. 459 , 690 A.2d 606 (1997), and State v. Malloy, 324 N.J.Super. 525 , 736 A.2d 532 (App.Div.1999), none of the decisions applying Green’s identification instruction has required that instruction to include comments on perceived weaknesses in the State’s evidence. 2000Moreover, except for the two cases cited by defendant, State v. Edmonds, 293 N.J.Super. 113 , 679 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1996), certif. denied, 148 N.J. 459 , 690 A.2d 606 (1997), and State v. Malloy, 324 N.J.Super. 525 , 736 A.2d 532 (App.Div.1999), none of the decisions applying Green’s identification instruction has required that instruction to include comments on perceived weaknesses in the State’s evidence. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2024Nonetheless, because the State's proofs were entirely circumstantial, no eyewitness identified defendant as the shooter, and misidentification was central to the defense, we are convinced that, in conjunction with the judge's failure to give an identification instruction, which we will discuss next, it is likely and reasonable that "'the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" G.E.P., 243 N.J. at 390 (quoting Jordan, 147 N.J. at 422 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Beasley v. Passaic County
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 603-04 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sergeant First Class Frank Chiofalo v. State of New Jersey (081607)(Mercer County and Statewide)
green
1 sentence2021Specifically, "[s]atisfaction of the identification requirement enables the trial court to 'make a threshold determination that there is a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and [the] law or public policy identified by the court or the plaintiff.'" Id. at 542 (quoting Dzwonar, 177 N.J. at 464 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Estate of Roach v. Trw, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019In short, the identification requirement assists trial courts in "distinguish[ing] an employee's objection to, or reporting of, an employer's illegal or unethical conduct from a routine dispute in the workplace regarding the relative merits of internal policies and procedures," Hitesman , 218 N.J. at 31 , 93 A.3d 306 (citing Dzwonar , 177 N.J. at 467 -69 , 828 A.2d 893 ), and thus helps in the weeding out of those cases that only "concern[ ] the most trivial or benign employee complaints," id. at 32, 93 A.3d 306 (quoting Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc. , 164 N.J. 598 , 613-14, 754 A.2d 544 (2000) 2019In short, the identification requirement assists trial courts in "distinguish[ing] an employee's objection to, or reporting of, an employer's illegal or unethical conduct from a routine dispute in the workplace regarding the relative merits of internal policies and procedures," Hitesman , 218 N.J. at 31 , 93 A.3d 306 (citing Dzwonar , 177 N.J. at 467 -69 , 828 A.2d 893 ), and thus helps in the weeding out of those cases that only "concern[ ] the most trivial or benign employee complaints," id. at 32, 93 A.3d 306 (quoting Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc. , 164 N.J. 598 , 613-14, 754 A.2d 544 (2000) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2018Defendant has failed to show the omission was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Alexander, 233 N.J. at 142 (quoting R. 2:10-2). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of New Jersey v. Alfred J. Smith
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 573 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2005State v. Ortiz, supra, 203 N.J.Super. at 522 , 497 A. 2d 552 . [2] II A At 9:15 a.m. on February 28, 2003, the jury began its deliberations. 2005State v. Ortiz, supra, 203 N.J.Super. at 522 , 497 A. 2d 552 . [2] II A At 9:15 a.m. on February 28, 2003, the jury began its deliberations. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Gaskin
green
2 sentences2003State v. Copling, 326 N.J.Super. 417, 434 , 741 A. 2d 624 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 189 , 752 A. 2d 1290 (2000); State v. Gaskin, 325 N.J.Super. 563, 573 , 740 A. 2d 157 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 190 , 752 A. 2d 1291 (2000). 2003State v. Copling, 326 N.J.Super. 417, 434 , 741 A. 2d 624 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 189 , 752 A. 2d 1290 (2000); State v. Gaskin, 325 N.J.Super. 563, 573 , 740 A. 2d 157 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 190 , 752 A. 2d 1291 (2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Copling
green
2 sentences2003State v. Copling, 326 N.J.Super. 417, 434 , 741 A. 2d 624 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 189 , 752 A. 2d 1290 (2000); State v. Gaskin, 325 N.J.Super. 563, 573 , 740 A. 2d 157 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 190 , 752 A. 2d 1291 (2000). 2003State v. Copling, 326 N.J.Super. 417, 434 , 741 A. 2d 624 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 189 , 752 A. 2d 1290 (2000); State v. Gaskin, 325 N.J.Super. 563, 573 , 740 A. 2d 157 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 164 N.J. 190 , 752 A. 2d 1291 (2000). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. McNeil green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Middleton green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Huff neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Huff green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Huff neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Frey green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Biegenwald green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Maldonado green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Payton v. Abbott Labs green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Cirillo green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| United States v. Calman Bernstein green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Murphy green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.