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.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2021 1 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. Lazogreen2 sentences2021The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result "must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached." State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012) (second alteration in original) (quoting [State v.] R.B., . . . 183 N.J. [308,] 330 [(2005)]). 2020The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result "must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached." State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012) (second alteration in original) (quoting [State v.] R.B., 183 N.J. [308,] 330 [2005]). | 8 | 9 |
State v. J.R.green2 sentences2020As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or A-4142-17T4 18 evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393, 417 (2017).] The Supreme Court applied the harmless error standard in D.G. to reverse the defendant's conviction in a case where the trial court failed to conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and failed to make any of the findings required by N.J 2017"The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result 'must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012) (alterations in original)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. RBgreen2 sentences2017The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result “must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.” State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (second alteration in original) (quoting R.B., supra, 183 N.J. at 330, 873 A.2d 511 ). 2017The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result “must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.” State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (second alteration in original) (quoting R.B., supra, 183 N.J. at 330, 873 A.2d 511 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hymangreen1 sentence2019See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012) (holding that in order to reverse conviction because of evidentiary error, there must be a real prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result); Hyman, 451 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Amie Marroccelligreen1 sentence2019"The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result 'must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.'" Marroccelli, 448 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carlos Bolvito (071493)green1 sentence2019As to defendant's challenge to his sentence, "[w]e apply a deferential standard of review to the sentencing court's determination, but not to [its] interpretation of a law." State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Koedatichgreen1 sentence2017As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., . . . "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [(slip op. at 29).] 27 A-5386-13T3 A defendant "has the right to introduce evidence that someone else committed the crime for the purpose of raising doubt about his [or her] own guilt." Cope, supra, 224 N.J. at 552 (citing State v. Koedatich (Koedatich II), 112 N.J. 225, 297, 299 | 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. DG
green
2 sentences2020As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or A-4142-17T4 18 evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393, 417 (2017).] The Supreme Court applied the harmless error standard in D.G. to reverse the defendant's conviction in a case where the trial court failed to conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and failed to make any of the findings required by N.J 2020As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or A-4142-17T4 18 evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393, 417 (2017).] The Supreme Court applied the harmless error standard in D.G. to reverse the defendant's conviction in a case where the trial court failed to conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and failed to make any of the findings required by N.J | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. WB
green
2 sentences2017As the Court noted in W.B., supra, “[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result.” 205 N.J. at 614, 17 A.3d 187 . 2017As the Court noted in W.B., supra, “[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result.” 205 N.J. at 614. 29 Accordingly, we consider the portion of Dr. Taska’s testimony that exceeded the bounds of CSAAS evidence in the broader context of defendant’s trial. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. MacOn
green
1 sentence2019"The prospect that the error gave rise to an unjust result 'must be real [and] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Tahir Zaman v. Barbara Felton (072128)
green
1 sentence2019Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199 , 226- 27 (2014). 17 A-3836-16T3 Applying these principles, even assuming error in the exclusion of the check, such error was harmless. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Demetrius Cope (074206).
green
2 sentences2017As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., . . . "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [(slip op. at 29).] 27 A-5386-13T3 A defendant "has the right to introduce evidence that someone else committed the crime for the purpose of raising doubt about his [or her] own guilt." Cope, supra, 224 N.J. at 552 (citing State v. Koedatich (Koedatich II), 112 N.J. 225, 297, 299 2017As the Court noted in [State v.] W.B., . . . "[c]onvictions after a fair trial, based on strong evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should not be reversed because of a technical or evidentiary error that cannot have truly prejudiced the defendant or affected the end result." 205 N.J. [588,] 614 [(2011)]. [(slip op. at 29).] 27 A-5386-13T3 A defendant "has the right to introduce evidence that someone else committed the crime for the purpose of raising doubt about his [or her] own guilt." Cope, supra, 224 N.J. at 552 (citing State v. Koedatich (Koedatich II), 112 N.J. 225, 297, 299 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Amland Properties Corp. v. Aluminum Co. of America
green
1 sentence1989Singer relies on the holding in Amland Properties Corp. v. Aluminum Co. of America, supra , in support of this argument. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance
green
1 sentence1961Super. 314 ( App. Div. 1958), affirmed 28 N.J. 17 (1958), the prospect of a claim for indemnity is only of academic significance. 2 Harper & James, Torts § 26.1 p. 1363 (1956). *541 We should remember we are dealing with negligence which often is but a matter of split-second inadvertence. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.