12 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 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. Parkergreen2 sentences2020As the Supreme Court has held, whenever "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction" – like that given here – "does not suffice." Parker, 124 N.J. at 636 . 2004In State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), the Court endorsed the view that when "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice." Id. at 636 , 592 A. 2d 228 (internal quotes and citations omitted). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Melendezgreen2 sentences2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j 2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Claret Echeverrygreen2 sentences2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j 2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Adrian Norman Paysenogreen2 sentences2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j 2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j | 2 | 2 |
State v. Frisbygreen1 sentence2026State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583, 597-98 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scherzergreen1 sentence2021In State v. Scherzer, we applied the Parker factors and held that a general unanimity instruction was sufficient where the offenses charged required only one type of criminal act—sexual penetration. 301 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jerry R. Mastelotto, and Willis B. Inglesbygreen1 sentence2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Franklin Delano Gipson
green
2 sentences1991Id. at 458-59 ; see also United States v. Payseno, 782 F. 2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) ("`[When] there is a genuine possibility of jury confusion or that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice.'" (quoting United States v. Echeverry, 719 F. 2d 974, 975 (9th Cir.1983))). 1991Id. at 458-59 ; see also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“ ‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of jury confusion or that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice.’ ” (quoting United States v. Echeverry, 719 F. 2d 974, 975 (9th Cir.1983))). | 4 | 1991–2020 |
State v. Crisoforo Montalvo (077331) (Monmouth and Statewide)
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, "there is a presumption that the charge was not error and was unlikely to prejudice . . . defendant's case." Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 320 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Cagno
green
1 sentence2020Cagno, 211 N.J. at 516 -17 (quoting Parker, 124 N.J. at 641 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Girling Health Systems, Inc. v. United States
green
1 sentence2004In State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), the Court endorsed the view that when "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice." Id. at 636 , 592 A. 2d 228 (internal quotes and citations omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Arlen v. United States
green
1 sentence2004In State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), the Court endorsed the view that when "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice." Id. at 636 , 592 A. 2d 228 (internal quotes and citations omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ohio Department of Human Services v. Ohio Hospital Ass'n
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), the Court endorsed the view that when "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice." Id. at 636 , 592 A. 2d 228 (internal quotes and citations omitted). 2004In State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), the Court endorsed the view that when "a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice." Id. at 636 , 592 A. 2d 228 (internal quotes and citations omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Claret Echeverry
green
2 sentences2002In Parker, supra, we gave examples of such circumstances, “[when] a single crime can be proven by different theories based on different acts and at least two of these theories rely on different evidence, and [when] the circumstances demonstrate a reasonable possibility that a juror will find one theory proven and the other not proven but that all of the jurors will not agree on the same theory.” People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1433-34 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990) .... [S]ee also United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1986) (“‘[When] there is a genuine possibility of j 2002Echeverry, [supra,] 698 F.2d at 376-77 . | 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.