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.
24 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 8 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. Wintergreen2 sentences2025Whether the alleged error can be ameliorated by a curative instruction is a part of that discretion: The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 646-47 (1984).] The same deference applies to the curative instruc 2025Our Supreme Court has articulated: The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [Winter, 96 N.J. at 646-47 .] "The authority is abundant that courts presume juries follow instructions." Herbert, 457 N.J. | 11 | 21 |
State v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2019Consequently, "[a] motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court; and the denial of the motion is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting State v. Witte , 13 N.J. 598 , 611, 100 A.2d 754 (1953) ); see also State v. Yough , 208 N.J. 385 , 397, 31 A.3d 271 (2011) (stating that whether a curative instruction can neutralize a prejudicial remark is within the trial court's competence); State v. Harvey , 151 N.J. 117 , 205, 699 A.2d 596 (1997) (stating an appellate court must find "an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice" to o 2019Consequently, "[a] motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court; and the denial of the motion is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting State v. Witte , 13 N.J. 598 , 611, 100 A.2d 754 (1953) ); see also State v. Yough , 208 N.J. 385 , 397, 31 A.3d 271 (2011) (stating that whether a curative instruction can neutralize a prejudicial remark is within the trial court's competence); State v. Harvey , 151 N.J. 117 , 205, 699 A.2d 596 (1997) (stating an appellate court must find "an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice" to o | 4 | 4 |
State v. Wittegreen2 sentences2007The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [ Id. at 646-47 , 477 A. 2d 323 .] A decision by the trial court to deny a motion for a mistrial "`is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion.'" Id. at 647 , 477 A. 2d 323 (quoting State v. Witte 2007The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [ Id. at 646-47 , 477 A. 2d 323 .] A decision by the trial court to deny a motion for a mistrial "`is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion.'" Id. at 647 , 477 A. 2d 323 (quoting State v. Witte | 3 | 6 |
State v. Harveygreen2 sentences2019Consequently, "[a] motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court; and the denial of the motion is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting State v. Witte , 13 N.J. 598 , 611, 100 A.2d 754 (1953) ); see also State v. Yough , 208 N.J. 385 , 397, 31 A.3d 271 (2011) (stating that whether a curative instruction can neutralize a prejudicial remark is within the trial court's competence); State v. Harvey , 151 N.J. 117 , 205, 699 A.2d 596 (1997) (stating an appellate court must find "an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice" to o 2019Consequently, "[a] motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court; and the denial of the motion is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting State v. Witte , 13 N.J. 598 , 611, 100 A.2d 754 (1953) ); see also State v. Yough , 208 N.J. 385 , 397, 31 A.3d 271 (2011) (stating that whether a curative instruction can neutralize a prejudicial remark is within the trial court's competence); State v. Harvey , 151 N.J. 117 , 205, 699 A.2d 596 (1997) (stating an appellate court must find "an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice" to o | 3 | 4 |
State v. Herbertgreen2 sentences2025Our Supreme Court has articulated: The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [Winter, 96 N.J. at 646-47 .] "The authority is abundant that courts presume juries follow instructions." Herbert, 457 N.J. 2024When inadmissible evidence is presented to a jury, a trial court must decide whether that evidence "'is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial.'" Herbert, 457 N.J. | 2 | 4 |
State v. MacOngreen1 sentence2019Furthermore, "[t]he adequacy of a curative instruction necessarily focuses on the capacity of the offending evidence to lead to a verdict that could not otherwise be justly reached." Id. at 647 (citing State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 335 (1971)). | 1 | 1 |
Khan v. Singhgreen1 sentence2017Our Supreme Court has long held: The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is 16 A-1091-16T4 peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 646-47 (1984).] The same is true in civil cases, Khan v. Singh, 397 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colliergreen1 sentence2015Super. 557, 563 (App. Div. 1973), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 508 (1974) (barring the admission of a document containing hearsay and stating that, despite the availability of a limiting instruction under the Rules, "a trial judge can still exclude evidence [under N.J.R.E. 403] which may have limited admissibility value if he feels that a cautionary or limiting instruction will not neutralize the prejudice engendered by such evidence"); State v. Collier, 316 N.J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vallejo
green
1 sentence2022The decision on whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial, is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial comment on the jury in the overall setting. [Id. at 646-47.] A-1883-20 15 When the trial judge determines that a curative instruction, rather than a mistrial, will suffice to rectify the error, generally, the instruction "must be firm, clear, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Khan v. Singh
green
1 sentence2017Super. 184, 202 (App. Div. 2007), aff'd, 200 N.J. 82 (2009), and for comments by counsel, State v. Yough, 208 N.J. 385, 397 (2011). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hill v. Newman
neutral
1 sentence2015Super. 557, 563 (App. Div. 1973), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 508 (1974) (barring the admission of a document containing hearsay and stating that, despite the availability of a limiting instruction under the Rules, "a trial judge can still exclude evidence [under N.J.R.E. 403] which may have limited admissibility value if he feels that a cautionary or limiting instruction will not neutralize the prejudice engendered by such evidence"); State v. Collier, 316 N.J. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Collier
green
1 sentence2015Super. 181, 197 (App. Div. 1998), aff'd o.b., 162 N.J. 27 (1999) (noting that the 42 A-3543-13T2 Although we do not categorically rule out in all cases the strictly-impeachment use of a treating expert's contrary hearsay findings during the cross-examination of a testifying expert, we agree that the cross-examination here improperly sought to elicit the contents of Dr. Falciani's opinions for their truth. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bruton v. United States
green
1 sentence1999Likewise, when weighing the effectiveness of curative instructions, a reviewing court should give equal deference to the determination of the trial court. [ Id. at 646-47 , 477 A.2d 323 .] Although defendant now complains that the judge's charge was inadequate, no such objection was raised either time the charge was given, first shortly after the evidence was received without initial objection, and later during the general charge at the end of the case. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.