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 1988–2024 2 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. Benedettogreen2 sentences1993Generally the basis for accepting such testimony is that the behavior of both the victim and the defendant are part of the mosaic of the criminal event, and hence, insofar as their declarations bear upon either the quality of their acts or a relevant state of mind, they must be accepted as part and parcel of the critical scene. [ Id. at 394, 221 A. 2d 199 .] In State v. Benedetto, 120 N.J. 250 , 576 A. 2d 828 (1990), the Court reviewed earlier case law and expounded on the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. 1993Generally the basis for accepting such testimony is that the behavior of both the victim and the defendant are part of the mosaic of the criminal event, and hence, insofar as their declarations bear upon either the quality of their acts or a relevant state of mind, they must be accepted as part and parcel of the critical scene. [ Id. at 394, 221 A. 2d 199 .] In State v. Benedetto, 120 N.J. 250 , 576 A. 2d 828 (1990), the Court reviewed earlier case law and expounded on the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Calleiagreen2 sentences2024In State v. Calleia, the Court held "when a victim's state-of-mind hearsay statements are relevant to show the declarant's own conduct, and when such conduct is known or probably known to the defendant, it also can give rise to motive, and the statements become admissible for that purpose, subject to the usual balancing under N.J.R.E. 403." 206 N.J. 274, 296 (2011). 2020That is to say, subject to certain exceptions, a fact probative of the victim's state of mind, standing alone, does not tend to prove any material fact about a defendant's conduct or state of mind. [State v. Calleia, 206 N.J. 274, 291-92 (2011).] A-3393-14T3 12 The state of mind exception should be construed narrowly, and the focus is whether the declarant's state of mind is directly relevant to the issues at trial. | 2 | 2 |
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc 2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc | 1 | 3 |
State v. Downeygreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Benedetto, supra, 120 N.J. at 259-61 , 576 A.2d 828 (finding that victim’s *570 statements describing threats were “not relevant to any issue and not explanatory of how defendant had acted on the night of [the victim’s death]”); State v. Downey, 206 N.J.Super. 382, 392 , 502 A.2d 1171 (App.Div.1986) (noting weight of authority supporting same). 1988For reversal — None. 1 In Downey , the Appellate Division found that the state-of-mind exception contains as a predicate to admission that the statement must reflect a mental condition of the declarant that constitutes a genuine issue in the case or that the statement must be otherwise relevant to explain the declarant’s conduct. 206 N.J.Super. at 390 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Stephen F. Scharf(074922)green2 sentences2022The trial court misapplied the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Scharf, 225 N.J. 547 (2016), when it admitted into evidence hearsay statements attributable to the victim under the state of mind exception in N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3). 2017Our Supreme Court recently addressed the state of mind exception in the context of a victim's expression of fear, noting the exception "does not broadly allow admission of a victim's recounting of a defendant's threats." State v. Scharf, 225 N.J. 547, 569 (2016). | 1 | 2 |
State v. McCoygreen1 sentence2016See State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 367 (Minn.1999), overruled on other grounds by, State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153 , 160 n.6 (Minn.2004); Campbell v. United States, 391 A.2d 283, 287 (D.C.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bauergreen1 sentence2016See State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 367 (Minn.1999), overruled on other grounds by, State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153 , 160 n.6 (Minn.2004); Campbell v. United States, 391 A.2d 283, 287 (D.C.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 367 (Minn.1999), overruled on other grounds by, State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153 , 160 n.6 (Minn.2004); Campbell v. United States, 391 A.2d 283, 287 (D.C.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Mutual Life Insurance v. Hillmongreen2 sentences2011He argues that the panel incorrectly relied on Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 294-300 , 12 S.Ct. 909, 912-14 , 36 L.Ed. 706, 710-12 (1892), when it held that N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) “not only serves to admit such a statement into evidence to prove Serrano’s state of mind, but allows a jury to infer from that statement—with no jury instruction on the matter—that Serrano and defendant engaged in the subsequent criminal behavior referenced in Serrano’s hearsay statement.” He concludes that “[t]he decision below represents a misapplication of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3)[.]” 7 Relying on Hil 2011He argues that the panel incorrectly relied on Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 294-300 , 12 S.Ct. 909, 912-14 , 36 L.Ed. 706, 710-12 (1892), when it held that N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) “not only serves to admit such a statement into evidence to prove Serrano’s state of mind, but allows a jury to infer from that statement—with no jury instruction on the matter—that Serrano and defendant engaged in the subsequent criminal behavior referenced in Serrano’s hearsay statement.” He concludes that “[t]he decision below represents a misapplication of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3)[.]” 7 Relying on Hil | 1 | 1 |
James R. Greider v. Jack Duckworthgreen1 sentence1997Because a state of mind requirement is part of the prima facie case of murder, even if the defense of insanity were abolished ... some insane killers would still escape conviction for murder, because their insanity had prevented them from forming the intent required of a murderer." Greider v. Duckworth, 701 F.2d 1228, 1236-37 (7th Cir.1983) (Posner, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 3 In State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 125-26 , 594 A.2d 232 (1991), we found that an instruction that the jury could find passion/provocation manslaughter only if it first acquitted the defe | 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. Boratto
green
2 sentences2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc 2011The governing principle is simply stated: to be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the declarant’s state of mind must be “in issue.” State v. Boratto, 154 N.J.Super. 386 , 381 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1977), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 80 N.J. 506 , 404 A.2d 604 (1979). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Boratto
green
2 sentences2011The governing principle is simply stated: to be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the declarant’s state of mind must be “in issue.” State v. Boratto, 154 N.J.Super. 386 , 381 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1977), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 80 N.J. 506 , 404 A.2d 604 (1979). 2011The governing principle is simply stated: to be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the declarant’s state of mind must be “in issue.” State v. Boratto, 154 N.J.Super. 386 , 381 A.2d 794 (App.Div.1977), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 80 N.J. 506 , 404 A.2d 604 (1979). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 392-93 , 221 A.2d 199 . 1993Generally the basis for accepting such testimony is that the behavior of both the victim and the defendant are part of the mosaic of the criminal event, and hence, insofar as their declarations bear upon either the quality of their acts or a relevant state of mind, they must be accepted as part and parcel of the critical scene. [ Id. at 394, 221 A. 2d 199 .] In State v. Benedetto, 120 N.J. 250 , 576 A. 2d 828 (1990), the Court reviewed earlier case law and expounded on the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 1993–2011 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2008We have explained that "[t]he ancient res gestae concept, now codified in N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) and referred to as the state of mind exception, covers `statement[s] made in good faith of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health)[.]'" State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 153 , 801 A. 2d 221 (2002) (quoting N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3)). 2008We have explained that "[t]he ancient res gestae concept, now codified in N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) and referred to as the state of mind exception, covers `statement[s] made in good faith of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health)[.]'" State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 153 , 801 A. 2d 221 (2002) (quoting N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3)). | 2 | 2002–2008 |
State v. Pomianek
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 343-44 , 58 A.3d 1205 . 2015Id. at 343-44 , 58 A.3d 1205 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. ALZA CORPORATION
green
1 sentence2011We therefore hold that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those unredacted statements as evidence in the case, State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 149 , 948 A.2d 686 (2008), and that their admission was error “of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]” R. 2:10-2; State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 312 , 901 A.2d 363 (2006). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Kemp
green
1 sentence2011We therefore hold that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those unredacted statements as evidence in the case, State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 149 , 948 A.2d 686 (2008), and that their admission was error “of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]” R. 2:10-2; State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 312 , 901 A.2d 363 (2006). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. CALLEIA
green
2 sentences2011State v. Calleia, 414 N.J.Super. 125, 129-38 , 997 A.2d 1051 (App.Div.2010). 2 The state-of-mind exception to the prohibition against hearsay evidence is codified at N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) and allows admission of “[a] statement made in good faith of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed[.]" 3 We need not comment further on the holding of Dreher for we do not suggest that we would no 2011State v. Calleia, 414 N.J.Super. 125, 129-38 , 997 A.2d 1051 (App.Div.2010). 2 The state-of-mind exception to the prohibition against hearsay evidence is codified at N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) and allows admission of “[a] statement made in good faith of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed[.]" 3 We need not comment further on the holding of Dreher for we do not suggest that we would no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Castagna
green
2 sentences2011We therefore hold that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those unredacted statements as evidence in the case, State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 149 , 948 A.2d 686 (2008), and that their admission was error “of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]” R. 2:10-2; State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 312 , 901 A.2d 363 (2006). 2011We therefore hold that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those unredacted statements as evidence in the case, State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 149 , 948 A.2d 686 (2008), and that their admission was error “of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]” R. 2:10-2; State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 312 , 901 A.2d 363 (2006). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ottey v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Gaito v. Prasse
green
1 sentence2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Thornton
green
2 sentences2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc 2011Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 , 185 A. 2d 9 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816 , 83 S.Ct. 1710 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated: When a person's engagement in a course of conduct or an act ... is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation ... declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act. [ Id. at 389, 185 A. 2d 9 (emphasis added).] Recently in State v. Mc | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. LP
green
2 sentences2002Despite the urging of some to abandon the use of the principle denominated as res gestae, see 2 McCormick on Evidence § 268 (Strong ed., 5th ed.1999); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 218 (Tillers Rev. 1983), "[c]ourts continue to cling to it." State v. L.P., 338 N.J.Super. 227, 241 , 768 A. 2d 795 (App.Div.) (Wefing, J.A.D., concurring), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 205 , 785 A. 2d 434 (2001). 2002Despite the urging of some to abandon the use of the principle denominated as res gestae, see 2 McCormick on Evidence § 268 (Strong ed., 5th ed.1999); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 218 (Tillers Rev. 1983), "[c]ourts continue to cling to it." State v. L.P., 338 N.J.Super. 227, 241 , 768 A. 2d 795 (App.Div.) (Wefing, J.A.D., concurring), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 205 , 785 A. 2d 434 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Simon
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 447 , 737 A.2d 1 . 2000Id. at 447 , 737 A.2d 1 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Erazo
green
2 sentences1997Because a state of mind requirement is part of the prima facie case of murder, even if the defense of insanity were abolished ... some insane killers would still escape conviction for murder, because their insanity had prevented them from forming the intent required of a murderer." Greider v. Duckworth, 701 F.2d 1228, 1236-37 (7th Cir.1983) (Posner, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 3 In State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 125-26 , 594 A.2d 232 (1991), we found that an instruction that the jury could find passion/provocation manslaughter only if it first acquitted the defe 1997Because a state of mind requirement is part of the prima facie case of murder, even if the defense of insanity were abolished ... some insane killers would still escape conviction for murder, because their insanity had prevented them from forming the intent required of a murderer." Greider v. Duckworth, 701 F.2d 1228, 1236-37 (7th Cir.1983) (Posner, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 3 In State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 125-26 , 594 A.2d 232 (1991), we found that an instruction that the jury could find passion/provocation manslaughter only if it first acquitted the defe | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.