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.
18 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 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. PSgreen2 sentences2026III. "[I]n reviewing a trial judge's finding that a child's statement meets the trustworthiness requirement of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), appellate courts affirm unless the judge's determination amounted to an abuse of discretion." State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 250 (2010) (quoting State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383, 411 (2009)). 2024"In reviewing a trial judge's finding that a child's statement meets the trustworthiness requirement of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), appellate courts affirm unless the judge's determination amounted to an abuse of discretion." P.S., 202 N.J. at 250 . | 4 | 9 |
State v. Nyhammergreen2 sentences2026III. "[I]n reviewing a trial judge's finding that a child's statement meets the trustworthiness requirement of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), appellate courts affirm unless the judge's determination amounted to an abuse of discretion." State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 250 (2010) (quoting State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383, 411 (2009)). 2019P.S., 202 N.J. at 250 (citing State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383, 411 (2009)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Smith, 158 N.J. 376, 389-91 (1999) (holding closeness in time between incident and interview, consistent answers, no evidence of a motive to fabricate the charges, and absence of bias against defendant by interviewer supported determination that the statement was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the trustworthiness requirement of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27)); see also State v. Delgado, 327 N.J. 2007Id. at 391, 730 A. 2d 311 . | 2 | 2 |
State in Interest of SMgreen2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 2 |
State v. Burrgreen2 sentences2010Nonetheless, there remains a “need for a trustworthiness analysis ... under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), and the same factors identified in Wright , and endorsed by D.G., are appropriate for guidance in that context.” Burr, supra, 392 N.J.Super. at 570 , 921 A.2d 1135 (citations omitted). 2010Nonetheless, there remains a “need for a trustworthiness analysis ... under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), and the same factors identified in Wright , and endorsed by D.G., are appropriate for guidance in that context.” Burr, supra, 392 N.J.Super. at 570 , 921 A.2d 1135 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Michaelsgreen2 sentences2025On appeal, defendant contends the court "failed to apply the trustworthiness factors" that have been enumerated by our Supreme Court in State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 312-13 (1994), in considering the admission of Jill's statement to investigators. 2010Further, in State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299 , 642 A.2d 1372 (1994), we outlined factors to determine whether an interview technique has the requisite indicia of reliability. | 1 | 3 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2021Our Supreme Court relied on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990), in describing the relevant factors as "spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 249 (2010); see also State in Interest of A.R., 234 N.J. 82, 103 (2018). 2019A-5701-16T1 20 "Courts applying 803(c)(27) . . . have looked to the trustworthiness factors outlined in [Idaho v.] Wright[, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)] when determining if a child victim's out-of-court statements are admissible." State v. D.G., 157 N.J. 112, 126 (1999) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Eldersgreen1 sentence2026A trial court's determination of reliability or trustworthiness sufficient to allow admission of evidence should not be disturbed unless, after considering the record and giving the deference owed to the court's credibility findings, it is apparent that the finding is "clearly a mistaken one and so plainly A-2232-23 9 unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction[.]" [Id. at 250-51 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).] Only in those circumstances may "an appellate court 'ap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026A trial court's determination of reliability or trustworthiness sufficient to allow admission of evidence should not be disturbed unless, after considering the record and giving the deference owed to the court's credibility findings, it is apparent that the finding is "clearly a mistaken one and so plainly A-2232-23 9 unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction[.]" [Id. at 250-51 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).] Only in those circumstances may "an appellate court 'ap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Locurtogreen1 sentence2026A trial court's determination of reliability or trustworthiness sufficient to allow admission of evidence should not be disturbed unless, after considering the record and giving the deference owed to the court's credibility findings, it is apparent that the finding is "clearly a mistaken one and so plainly A-2232-23 9 unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction[.]" [Id. at 250-51 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).] Only in those circumstances may "an appellate court 'ap | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. A.R.green1 sentence2021Our Supreme Court relied on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990), in describing the relevant factors as "spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 249 (2010); see also State in Interest of A.R., 234 N.J. 82, 103 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. DGgreen2 sentences2019A-5701-16T1 20 "Courts applying 803(c)(27) . . . have looked to the trustworthiness factors outlined in [Idaho v.] Wright[, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)] when determining if a child victim's out-of-court statements are admissible." State v. D.G., 157 N.J. 112, 126 (1999) (citations omitted). 2019The Wright factors are non-exhaustive, but include "spontaneity, consistency of repetition, lack of motive to fabricate, the mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, interrogation, and manipulation by adults." Id. at 125 (citing Wright, 497 U.S. at 821-22 ). | 1 | 1 |
Bender v. Adelsongreen1 sentence2017"In general, we afford counsel broad latitude in closing arguments." Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., 197 N.J. 81, 128 (2008) (citing Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 431 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc.green1 sentence2017"In general, we afford counsel broad latitude in closing arguments." Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., 197 N.J. 81, 128 (2008) (citing Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 431 (2006)). | 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. JG
green
2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A. 2d 177 (App. Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was "clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright "); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A. 2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: "spontaneity and consi 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. JG
green
2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Roman
green
2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. CH
green
2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A. 2d 177 (App. Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was "clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright "); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A. 2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: "spontaneity and consi 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. CH
green
2 sentences1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste 1999See State in Interest of S.M., 284 N.J.Super. 611, 621 , 666 A.2d 177 (App.Div.1995) (upholding conviction after admissibility of tender years statement was challenged where it was “clear that the court was fully aware of its responsibility to determine trustworthiness as outlined in Idaho v. Wright ”); State v. C.H., 264 N.J.Super. 112, 124 , 624 A.2d 53 (App.Div.) (acknowledging that the following Wright factors are to be considered when determining if an out-of-court statement is sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the tender years exception to hearsay: “spontaneity and consiste | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Lucas
green
1 sentence1983The failure of defendant to describe with specificity the composition of the materials involved in each fire, or to refer to the rancid odor of the burning hair emitted during the second fire, or to demonstrate how he placed the lighted cigarette and book of matches on the ledge to set the second fire, considered in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances, does not compel the conclusion that the State failed to satisfy the trustworthiness test laid down in State v. Lucas, supra . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.