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.
16 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2023 3 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. Ugrovicsgreen2 sentences2021As Judge Fuentes observed in Ugrovics, the Chun Court's 15 A-1144-19 recognition of the "lesser role" played by an Alcotest operator than that played by the operators of prior tests that measured intoxication resulted in the State's burden at trial to "establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that, during the twenty-minute period immediately preceding the administration of the test, the test subject did not ingest, regurgitate or place anything in his or her mouth that may compromise the reliability of the test results." 410 N.J. 2019In addition, if the arrestee swallows anything or regurgitates, or if the operator notices chewing gum or tobacco in the person's mouth, the operator is required to begin counting the twenty-minute period anew. [id. at 79.] A-4462-17T3 4 The State, in compliance with the Court's prescription that "[n]otwithstanding this reduced role to be played by the operator as relates to the ultimate BAC [breath alcohol concentration] results reported . . . he or she [is required to] be made available for cross-examination [as] an important constitutional safeguard," id. at 140 , produced the officer it co | 2 | 2 |
State v. O'NEILLgreen2 sentences2020Thus, our Supreme Court's prohibition on "question-first, warn-later" interrogations, State v. O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 180 (2007), holding "when Miranda warnings are given after a custodial interrogation has already produced incriminating statements, the admissibility of post-warning statements will turn on whether the warnings functioned effectively in providing the defendant the ability to exercise his state law privilege against self- incrimination," id. at 180-81 , was not implicated. 2020Thus, our Supreme Court's prohibition on "question-first, warn-later" interrogations, State v. O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 180 (2007), holding "when Miranda warnings are given after a custodial interrogation has already produced incriminating statements, the admissibility of post-warning statements will turn on whether the warnings functioned effectively in providing the defendant the ability to exercise his state law privilege against self- incrimination," id. at 180-81 , was not implicated. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chungreen2 sentences2019In addition, if the arrestee swallows anything or regurgitates, or if the operator notices chewing gum or tobacco in the person's mouth, the operator is required to begin counting the twenty-minute period anew. [id. at 79.] A-4462-17T3 4 The State, in compliance with the Court's prescription that "[n]otwithstanding this reduced role to be played by the operator as relates to the ultimate BAC [breath alcohol concentration] results reported . . . he or she [is required to] be made available for cross-examination [as] an important constitutional safeguard," id. at 140 , produced the officer it co 2010"In the event that the administration of the test resulted in errors because of, for example, insufficient breath volume or duration, the AIR will report those errors and will not attempt to calculate the BAC from an inadequate sample." Ibid. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Kareem T. Tillery (079832) (Essex County and Statewide)green1 sentence2021See Tillery, 238 N.J. at 319 . | 1 | 1 |
Everett W. Gross and L. Mary Gross v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg | 1 | 1 |
State v. Steensengreen2 sentences1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg 1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2023Tiwana at her bedside in the hospital following a car crash initiated a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent warranting the administration of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2015In this appeal reviewing the determination on defendant’s motion to suppress, the Court addresses the applicable standard of review when part of the evidence considered by the trial court consists of a videotape of statements that defendant made during an interview at the police station, and whether the circumstances of that interview constitute a custodial interrogation warranting the administration of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda). | 3 | 2012–2023 |
Romano v. Kimmelman
green
2 sentences2018To avoid any confusion over what is intended by this level of proof, it should be understood that it conforms to that standard conventionally referred to as "clear and *127 convincing proof." The conditions of admissibility to which this burden of proof shall apply include those presently required to establish the admissibility of the results of a breathalyzer test, namely, the proper operating condition of the machine, the requisite qualifications of the operator, and the proper administration of the test. [ Id. at 90-91, 474 A.2d 1 .] Clear and convincing evidence "is a higher standard of pr 2009Id. at 91 , 474 A. 2d 1 . | 3 | 1988–2018 |
State v. Pandoli
green
2 sentences1999Because granting a request to consult with counsel would delay the administration of the test and would affect the results, Pandoli, supra, 109 N.J.Super. at 4 , 262 A.2d 41 , voicing a mere “preference” to have an attorney present, as defendant in the instant case argues he did, is a delay tactic that cannot be indulged. 1999Because granting a request to consult with counsel would delay the administration of the test and would affect the results, Pandoli, supra, 109 N.J.Super. at 4 , 262 A.2d 41 , voicing a mere “preference” to have an attorney present, as defendant in the instant case argues he did, is a delay tactic that cannot be indulged. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Early v. United States
neutral
2 sentences1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg 1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Gross v. United States
green
2 sentences1988Reasonable grounds would require, it is suggested, that the prosecutor's assurance be *505 based on the statements of witnesses, believed to be credible, who purport to have firsthand knowledge." [McCormick, supra, at 458.] The same point was made by Justice (then Judge) Francis, writing for the Appellate Division, in State v. Steensen, 35 N.J. Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high deg 1988Steensen, 35 N.J.Super. 103, 108-09 (1955): The administration of the rule is in the hands of the trial judge and he has a heavy responsibility to protect the practice from being abused. * * * A correlative obligation rests upon the prosecutor to display a very high degree of good faith in embarking upon such a cross-examination. [/<£ at 108 (citation omitted).] Accord Gross v. United States, 394 A.2d 216, 222-23 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1013 , 90 S.Ct. 1245 , 25 L.Ed.2d 427 (1970). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence1984Woomer moved to suppress the results of the test on the basis that the circumstances of the blood taking violated the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e) as interpreted in State v. Burns, 159 N.J. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Michelson v. United States
green
2 sentences1955Michelson v. United States, supra, 335 U.S., at page 481 , 69 S.Ct. 213 . 1955Michelson v. United States, supra, 335 U.S., at page 481 , 69 S.Ct. 213 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.