reference warning in New Jersey

2025To describe them in that way minimizes their import and undermines "the very purpose of Miranda." Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403, 428-30 (Fla. 2010) (criticizing a reference to the warnings as "just a matter of procedure"). .... . . . [T]elling suspects that confessing "could not hurt" and "could only help" them also contradicts Miranda.

2022To describe them in that way minimizes their import and undermines "the very purpose of Miranda." Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 , 428- 30 (Fla. 2010) (criticizing a reference to the warnings as "just a matter of procedure"). [Id. at 422.] While the Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule requiring suppression any time an officer makes an inappropriate comment undermining the import of A-2333-19 25 Miranda warnings, it held that improper police statements can be considered under the totality-of-the-circumstances test.

2025State v. Puryear, 441 N.J.

2021A-2573-18 20 In Point III, defendant argues that even if individually, "the other -crimes evidence and the prosecutorial misconduct in summation do not warrant reversal, in combination the errors 'cast sufficient doubt upon the verdict to warrant reversal.'" See State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 615 (2004) ("[W]e cannot excuse error on the basis of other overwhelming evidence of guilt when that other evidence also possesses the taint of error.").

2020However, plaintiffs are not average consumers and the contract was not a "consumer contract of adhesion where one party possessed superior bargaining power and was the more sophisticated party[,]" Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28, 40 (2006); instead, it was a negotiated contract between sophisticated business entities.

2017Neglia averred that Caldwell failed to notify either Neglia or the insurance carrier about the burst pipe and the consequential damage, which decreased the value of the Flemington property. 3 This is a reference to the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur," which permits the fact-finder "to infer negligence in certain circumstances, effectively reducing the plaintiff's burden of persuasion, but not shifting the burden of proof." Khan v. Singh, 200 N.J. 82, 91 (2009).

2017Application of res ipsa loquitur requires three fundamental predicates: "(a) the occurrence itself ordinarily bespeaks negligence; (b) the instrumentality was within the defendant's exclusive control; and (c) there is no indication in the circumstances that the injury was the result of the plaintiff's own voluntary act or neglect." Ibid. (quoting Bornstein v. Metro.

2014The judge has the discretion and obligation to apply Brunson so as "to exclude evidence the prejudicial effect of which seriously compromises a defendant's right to a fair trial." 132 N.J. at 400 (Handler, J., concurring).