cumulative error in New Jersey

2025Id. at 473 . "[T]he predicate for relief for cumulative error must be that the probable effect of the cumulative error was to render the underlying trial unfair." Wakefield, 190 N.J. at 538.

2025Finally, when multiple errors are alleged, "the predicate for relief for cumulative error must be that the probable effect of the cumulative error was to A-0667-22 24 render the underlying trial unfair." State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 538 (2007).

2025Our goal, nonetheless, must always be fairness. "'A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.'" [State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 537 (2007) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 333-34 (2005)).] Thus, where legal errors occur but do not individually warrant reversal of a conviction, if those errors "in their aggregate have rendered the trial unfair, our fundamental constitutional concepts dictate the granting of a new trial before an impartial jury." State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954). "[T]he predicate for relief for cumul

2025Cumulative error is "where any one of several errors assigned would not in itself be sufficient to warrant a reversal, yet if all of them taken together justify the conclusion that defendant was not accorded a fair trial, it becomes the duty of this court to reverse." State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 134 (1954).

2025See State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 161 (2014) (applying the cumulative-error doctrine where the impact of multiple errors is A-1013-22 34 not harmless).

2025See State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 161-62 (2014) (applying the cumulative-error doctrine where the impact of multiple errors is not harmless).

2026The cumulative error doctrine provides reversal is warranted when a combination of errors "casts doubt on the propriety of the jury verdict" and "prejudice[s] the fairness of [a] defendant's trial." Jenewicz, 193 N.J. at 474 .

2025Id. at 473 . "[T]he predicate for relief for cumulative error must be that the probable effect of the cumulative error was to render the underlying trial unfair." Wakefield, 190 N.J. at 538.

2025In a cumulative error analysis, the court does "not merely count the number of mistakes," but A-0262-23 24 rather "'consider[s] the aggregate effect of the trial court's errors on the fairness of the trial.'" Id. at 85-86 (quoting Torres, 225 N.J. at 191 ).

2025See Comprehensive Neurosurgical, 257 N.J. at 85-86 (recognizing under a cumulative analysis appellate courts "do not merely count the number of mistakes 'because even a large number of errors, if inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice'" (quoting Torres v. Pabon, 225 N.J. 167, 191 (2015))).

2025Ibid.

2025The cumulative error doctrine recognizes "that even when an individual error or series of errors does not rise to reversible error, when considered in combination, their cumulative effect can cast sufficient doubt on a verdict to require reversal." State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440, 473 (2008) (citing State v. Kosovich, 168 N.J. 448, 540 (2001)).

2024In a cumulative error analysis, we do not merely count the number of mistakes “because even a large number of errors, if inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice.” Id. at 191 (quoting Pellicer, 200 N.J. at 55 ).

2024In a cumulative error analysis, we do not merely count the number of mistakes “because even a large number of errors, if inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice.” Id. at 191 (quoting Pellicer, 200 N.J. at 55 ).

2025Our goal, nonetheless, must always be fairness. "'A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.'" [State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 537 (2007) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 333-34 (2005)).] Thus, where legal errors occur but do not individually warrant reversal of a conviction, if those errors "in their aggregate have rendered the trial unfair, our fundamental constitutional concepts dictate the granting of a new trial before an impartial jury." State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954). "[T]he predicate for relief for cumul

2024"A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one." [Wakefield, 190 N.J. at 537 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 333-34 (2005)).] Thus, where legal errors occur but do not individually warrant reversal of a conviction, if those errors "in their aggregate have rendered the trial unfair, our fundamental constitutional concepts dictate the granting of a new trial before an impartial jury." State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954). "[T]he predicate for relief for cumulative error must be that the probable effect of the cumulative error

2022A-3282-20 23 The doctrine of cumulative error recognizes that "although an error or series of errors might not individually amount to plain error, in combination they can cast sufficient doubt upon the verdict to warrant reversal." State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 615 (2004).

2019Ibid.; see also State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 615 (2004) ("[A]lthough an error or series of errors might not individually amount to plain error, in combination they can cast sufficient doubt upon the verdict to warrant reversal.").

2025A-2442-22 8 Judge Caulfield denied both Atkinson's and John's petitions in separate, well-reasoned written decisions finding neither defendant satisfied the two -part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 2 In each opinion, the judge found defendants failed to establish Strickland's performance prong because there was insufficient evidence presented that the police knew the caller's identity or to support their argument the call was fabricated by the police.

2025Even if we were to find trial or appellate counsel was ineffective as to any of defendant's claims, we discern no nexus between counsel's alleged ineffectiveness and any trial outcome which would lead us to a finding of prejudice under prong two of Strickland. 466 U.S. at 688 .

2022Cumulative error occurs when errors that would not require reversal by themselves, together "cast doubt on [the] verdict and call for a new trial." Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. at 469 .

2022Cumulative error occurs when errors that would not require reversal by themselves, together "cast doubt on [the] verdict and call for a new trial." State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 469 (2018).

2024State v. Rambo, 401 N.J.

2022App. A-4557-18 30 1974)); (5) the State did not improperly withhold exculpatory information allegedly contained in defendant's cell phone, see State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248 , 270 n. 5 (1999) ("[T]here can be no Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)] violation where the accused or his counsel knows before trial about the information and makes no effort to obtain its production."); and (6) the cumulative error doctrine does not apply here because the alleged errors complained of by defendant, if error at all, do not constitute reversible error, see State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 538 (20

2022App. A-4557-18 30 1974)); (5) the State did not improperly withhold exculpatory information allegedly contained in defendant's cell phone, see State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248 , 270 n. 5 (1999) ("[T]here can be no Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)] violation where the accused or his counsel knows before trial about the information and makes no effort to obtain its production."); and (6) the cumulative error doctrine does not apply here because the alleged errors complained of by defendant, if error at all, do not constitute reversible error, see State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 538 (20

2020When deciding whether the probable effect of cumulative error was to render the underlying trial unfair, we must "necessarily look to the significance of the trial errors in light of the evidence presented to the jury." State v. Blakney, 189 N.J. 88, 96-97 (2006).

2020Cumulative error cannot be viewed as harmless "when cast against the less than overwhelming evidence supporting a . . . conviction." Id. at 97 .

2014Here, as in Weaver, the error involves a constitutional right, and reversal is required unless we can "conclude that the cumulative error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 48; see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.

2014Here, as in Weaver, the error involves a constitutional right, and reversal is required unless we can "conclude that the cumulative error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 48; see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.

2009Id. at 262, 234 A.2d 225 .

2009Id. at 262, 234 A.2d 225 .

1989Thus, according to Dively and DeLuca , the same evidence test is “whether the evidence actually used to establish guilt in the first prosecution is identical to that that will be used in the second prosecution.” Del uca, supra, 108 N.J. at 105-106 (paraphrasing Dively)- In applying this standard, the Court in DeLuca further observed that “[i]f the same evidence used in the first prosecution is the sole evidence in the second, the, prosecution of the second offense is barred,” ibid., and indicated, with respect to the facts before it, that, “[i]f the State relied solely on intoxication as evide

1989Thus, according to Dively and DeLuca , the same evidence test is “whether the evidence actually used to establish guilt in the first prosecution is identical to that that will be used in the second prosecution.” Del uca, supra, 108 N.J. at 105-106 (paraphrasing Dively)- In applying this standard, the Court in DeLuca further observed that “[i]f the same evidence used in the first prosecution is the sole evidence in the second, the, prosecution of the second offense is barred,” ibid., and indicated, with respect to the facts before it, that, “[i]f the State relied solely on intoxication as evide