res gestae doctrine in New Jersey

2011See, e.g., Branch, supra, 182 N.J. at 357-62 , 865 A. 2d 673 (discussing evolution of res gestae into codified hearsay exceptions); Schumann, supra, 111 N.J. at 479 , 545 A. 2d 168 (noting incorporation of res gestae into evidence rules); Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 503 , 273 A. 2d 761 (1971) (stating that "[o]ur Rules of Evidence have undertaken to codify this broader res gestae principle").

2011See, e.g., Branch, supra, 182 N.J. at 357-62 , 865 A. 2d 673 (discussing evolution of res gestae into codified hearsay exceptions); Schumann, supra, 111 N.J. at 479 , 545 A. 2d 168 (noting incorporation of res gestae into evidence rules); Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 503 , 273 A. 2d 761 (1971) (stating that "[o]ur Rules of Evidence have undertaken to codify this broader res gestae principle").

2008In a concurrence, Chief Justice Poritz pointed out that “although the res gestae principle, standing alone, has been discredited by scholars as a basis to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence, where, as here, its use is tethered to specific Evidence Rules, it remains a useful interpretive tool.” Id. at 166 , 801 A.2d 221 (Poritz, C.J., concurring) (emphasis added).

2008In a concurrence, Chief Justice Poritz pointed out that “although the res gestae principle, standing alone, has been discredited by scholars as a basis to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence, where, as here, its use is tethered to specific Evidence Rules, it remains a useful interpretive tool.” Id. at 166 , 801 A.2d 221 (Poritz, C.J., concurring) (emphasis added).

2011Co., 68 N.J.L. 1, 2 , 52 A. 370 (Sup.Ct.1902)).] The clear salutary effects generated by the prohibition against proof of prior bad acts, on the one hand, and the res gestae doctrine, on the other, more than amply counsel that this Court should continue to consider them separately for a bedrock reason: while res gestae focuses on the statement, act or omission to speak or act as an integral part of the matter directly at issue, N.J.R.E. 404(b) addresses an offer of proof of statements or acts occurring separate and apart from the matter at issue but offered to prove a fact relevant to the matt

2011Co., 68 N.J.L. 1, 2 , 52 A. 370 (Sup.Ct.1902)).] The clear salutary effects generated by the prohibition against proof of prior bad acts, on the one hand, and the res gestae doctrine, on the other, more than amply counsel that this Court should continue to consider them separately for a bedrock reason: while res gestae focuses on the statement, act or omission to speak or act as an integral part of the matter directly at issue, N.J.R.E. 404(b) addresses an offer of proof of statements or acts occurring separate and apart from the matter at issue but offered to prove a fact relevant to the matt

2011See, e.g., Branch, supra, 182 N.J. at 357-62 , 865 A. 2d 673 (discussing evolution of res gestae into codified hearsay exceptions); Schumann, supra, 111 N.J. at 479 , 545 A. 2d 168 (noting incorporation of res gestae into evidence rules); Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 503 , 273 A. 2d 761 (1971) (stating that "[o]ur Rules of Evidence have undertaken to codify this broader res gestae principle").

2011See, e.g., Branch, supra, 182 N.J. at 357-62 , 865 A. 2d 673 (discussing evolution of res gestae into codified hearsay exceptions); Schumann, supra, 111 N.J. at 479 , 545 A. 2d 168 (noting incorporation of res gestae into evidence rules); Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 503 , 273 A. 2d 761 (1971) (stating that "[o]ur Rules of Evidence have undertaken to codify this broader res gestae principle").

2011Defendant petitioned for certification to this Court, reasserting the same issues raised before the Appellate Division; however, our grant of certification was “limited to the issue of whether evidence that defendant was previously indicted and incarcerated on charges that he attempted to murder the victim was admissible at defendant’s trial pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(b), res gestae, or some other legal doctrine.” Rose, supra, 203 N.J. at 96 , 999 A.2d 465 .

2011Defendant petitioned for certification to this Court, reasserting the same issues raised before the Appellate Division; however, our grant of certification was "limited to the issue of whether evidence that defendant was previously indicted and incarcerated on charges that he attempted to murder the victim was admissible at defendant's trial pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(b), res gestae, or some other legal doctrine." Rose, supra, 203 N.J. at 96 , 999 A. 2d 465 .

2011That justification for addressing and ultimately discarding, in the context of this appeal, the continued viability of the doctrine of res gestae lays bare the true nature of the majority’s pronouncements on the issue: they are nothing more than “dicta, ‘that is, something that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential.]’ ” State v. McLaughlin, 205 N.J. 185 , 200 n. 10 (2011) (quoting Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286, 307 , 8 A.3d 766 (2010) (Rivera-Soto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2011That justification for addressing and ultimately discarding, in the context of this appeal, the continued viability of the doctrine of res gestae lays bare the true nature of the majority's pronouncements on the issue: they are nothing more than "dicta, `that is, something that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential[.]'" State v. McLaughlin, 205 N.J. 185 , 200 n. 10 (2011) (quoting Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286, 307 , 8 A. 3d 766 (2010) (Rivera-Soto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2011That justification for addressing and ultimately discarding, in the context of this appeal, the continued viability of the doctrine of res gestae lays bare the true nature of the majority's pronouncements on the issue: they are nothing more than "dicta, `that is, something that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential[.]'" State v. McLaughlin, 205 N.J. 185 , 200 n. 10 (2011) (quoting Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286, 307 , 8 A. 3d 766 (2010) (Rivera-Soto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2011That justification for addressing and ultimately discarding, in the context of this appeal, the continued viability of the doctrine of res gestae lays bare the true nature of the majority's pronouncements on the issue: they are nothing more than "dicta, `that is, something that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential[.]'" State v. McLaughlin, 205 N.J. 185 , 200 n. 10 (2011) (quoting Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286, 307 , 8 A. 3d 766 (2010) (Rivera-Soto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2008On that basis, the court declared "that the res gestae doctrine is no longer a legitimate independent ground for admissibility of evidence." Ibid.

2002Ibid.

2002Ibid.

1966State v. Stephan, 118 N.J.L. 592, 600-602 ( E. & A. 1937); Commonwealth v. Goetz, 129 Pa. Super. 22 , 195 A. 144 ( Super Ct. 1937); Beeland v. State, 149 Tex. Cr.

1966State v. Stephan, 118 N.J.L. 592, 600-602 ( E. & A. 1937); Commonwealth v. Goetz, 129 Pa. Super. 22 , 195 A. 144 ( Super Ct. 1937); Beeland v. State, 149 Tex. Cr.

1966State v. Stephan, 118 N.J.L. 592, 600-602 ( E. & A. 1937); Commonwealth v. Goetz, 129 Pa. Super. 22 , 195 A. 144 ( Super Ct. 1937); Beeland v. State, 149 Tex. Cr.

1955Irrespective of the res gestae rule, the statements were offered by the prosecution and were admissible as prior inconsistent statements of the witness, a proper foundation having been laid therefor on cross-examination, e.g., Chiesa v. Public Service Co-ordinated Trans., 128 N.J.L. 69 ( E. & A. 1942).

1952In Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Co., supra , Mr. Justice Case, in discussing the res gestae rule of evidence, stated: "In Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.L. 495 ( E. & A. 1878), Chief Justice Beasley approves the language of Wharton ( page 538): `The res gestae may therefore be defined as those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act * * * not produced by the calculated policy of the actors'; and again, at page 540, he justifies the admission of the declarations there under consideration as `the natural and inartificial concomitants of a probable act, which itse