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.
15 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2023 5 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. Nelsongreen2 sentences2022We "evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous." Ibid. (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002)). 2020A reviewing court "must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous . . . ." State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002). | 6 | 6 |
Stephanie Washington v. Carlos Perez, Olympia Trails & Olympia Trails Bus Company (072522)green2 sentences2021A-3538-18 10 Our "review of a challenged jury instruction entails not only scrutiny of the charge itself, but an inquiry as to whether an erroneous charge may have affected the trial's result." Washington v. Perez, 219 N.J. 338, 351 (2014). 2020"Appellate review of a challenged jury instruction entails not only scrutiny of the charge itself, but an inquiry as to whether an erroneous charge may have affected the trial's result." Washington, 219 N.J. at 351 . | 5 | 6 |
State v. Harmongreen1 sentence2023We conclude the error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result because such a suggestion -- that being a supervisor (element three) is sufficient to establish that a defendant occupied a high-level position (element four) -- could have led the jury to find the State proved defendants were “high - level” leaders merely by proving they were “supervisor[s].” See State v. Harmon, 104 N.J. 189, 213 (1986) (“Jury instructions must . . . adequately 26 define the offense and cover all the essential elements . . . . | 1 | 1 |
Mandal v. Port Authority of New York & New Jerseygreen1 sentence2022We will not reverse an error in jury instructions unless the error "produc[ed] an A-2501-18 12 unjust result or prejudice[ed] substantial rights." Ibid. (quoting Mandal v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 430 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Victor Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2022"Contradictory and inconsistent charges are inherently inadequate as they create a reasonable likelihood that a juror understood the instructions in an unconstitutional manner." State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Crego v. Carpgreen1 sentence2019The standard for assessing the soundness of a challenged jury instruction is "'how and in what sense, under the evidence before them, and the circumstances of the trial, would ordinary . . . jurors understand the instructions as a whole.'" Ibid. (citing Crego v. Carp, 295 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2018Super. at 594 (quoting State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
John M. Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corporationgreen1 sentence2014Notably, “in construing a jury charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation.” Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 18 , 800 A.2d 826 (citing Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 128 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116 , 118 S.Ct. 1052 , 140 L.Ed.2d 115 (1998)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Viscik v. Fowler Equipment Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Additionally, the reviewing court must "examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation." Ibid. (quoting Viscik, 173 N.J. at 18 ). 2014Notably, “in construing a jury charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation.” Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 18 , 800 A.2d 826 (citing Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 128 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116 , 118 S.Ct. 1052 , 140 L.Ed.2d 115 (1998)). | 2 | 2014–2020 |
State v. Savage
green
2 sentences2019The standard for assessing the soundness of a challenged jury instruction is "'how and in what sense, under the evidence before them, and the circumstances of the trial, would ordinary . . . jurors understand the instructions as a whole.'" Ibid. (citing Crego v. Carp, 295 N.J. 2018The standard for assessing the soundness of a challenged jury instruction is "how and in what A-4034-16T1 10 sense, under the evidence before them, and the circumstances of the trial, would ordinary . . . jurors understand the instructions as a whole." Ibid. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2022We "evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous." Ibid. (quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Noble
green
1 sentence2018In reviewing a challenged jury instruction, the appellate court "must read the charge 'as a whole [to determine] whether there was' plain error." Noble, 398 N.J. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gass v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence2014Notably, “in construing a jury charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation.” Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 18 , 800 A.2d 826 (citing Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 128 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116 , 118 S.Ct. 1052 , 140 L.Ed.2d 115 (1998)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Ryder
green
1 sentence2014Notably, “in construing a jury charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation.” Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 18 , 800 A.2d 826 (citing Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 128 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116 , 118 S.Ct. 1052 , 140 L.Ed.2d 115 (1998)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee
green
1 sentence2014Notably, “in construing a jury charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole, rather than focus on individual errors in isolation.” Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 18 , 800 A.2d 826 (citing Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 128 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116 , 118 S.Ct. 1052 , 140 L.Ed.2d 115 (1998)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Simon
green
2 sentences2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). 2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Clausell
green
2 sentences2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). 2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Manley
green
2 sentences2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A.2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A.2d 221 (1990), and “[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court’s] admonition.” State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A.2d 193 (1969). 2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
City of Newark v. North Jersey District Water Supply Commission
green
2 sentences2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A.2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A.2d 221 (1990), and “[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court’s] admonition.” State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A.2d 193 (1969). 2002It also is well-settled that a reviewing court must evaluate a challenged jury instruction in the context of the entire charge to determine whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous, State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 , 737 A. 2d 1 (1999); State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 330 , 580 A. 2d 221 (1990), and "[t]here can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the [court's] admonition." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 , 255 A. 2d 193 (1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.