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.
10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 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. Cassidygreen2 sentences2020To establish general acceptance, "the party proffering the evidence need not show infallibility of the technique nor unanimity of its acceptance in the scientific community." State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482, 492 (2018). 2020To A-5556-17T4 28 establish general acceptance, "the party proffering the evidence need not show infallibility of the technique nor unanimity of its acceptance in the scientific community." State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482, 492 (2018). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harveygreen2 sentences2022Nor does it "require complete agreement over the accuracy of the test or the exclusion of the possibility of error." Harvey, 151 N.J. at 171 . 2005In criminal cases, the Supreme Court of New Jersey applies the general acceptance or Frye test for determining the scientific reliability of expert testimony: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [ State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 169 , 699 A. 2d 596 (citing Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)).] Although gener | 1 | 4 |
State v. Chungreen2 sentences2018However, the Court provided in Chun that "there is ample support for the finding that the Alcotest is well-shielded from the impact of any potential RFI that might otherwise affect the reported results or limit our confidence in the accuracy of the test results." State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89 (2008). 2017The Law Division also found his testimony credible as it was "objectively reasonable and consistent." 7 In Chun, supra, 194 N.J. at 80 , the Supreme Court stated the operator of the Alcotest must "attach[] a new, disposable mouthpiece and remove[] all cell phones and portable electronic devices from the testing area." However, the Court also noted "there is ample support for the finding that the Alcotest is well- shielded from the impact of any potential RFI that might otherwise affect the reported results or limit our confidence in the accuracy of the test results." Id. at 89 . 22 A-5066-14T2 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Carrerogreen1 sentence2018We said in Carrero that "even if sources of RFI happened to be found in the testing area at the [police station] where [defendant's] blood- alcohol level was tested, those sources would not suffice to call into reasonable question the accuracy or validity of the Alcotest results for the purpose of a DWI prosecution." State v. Carrero, 428 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2005In criminal cases, the Supreme Court of New Jersey applies the general acceptance or Frye test for determining the scientific reliability of expert testimony: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [ State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 169 , 699 A. 2d 596 (citing Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)).] Although gener 2005In criminal cases, the Supreme Court of New Jersey applies the general acceptance or Frye test for determining the scientific reliability of expert testimony: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [ State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 169 , 699 A. 2d 596 (citing Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)).] Although gener | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.
green
2 sentences2005Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 , 593 A. 2d 733 (1991). 2005Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 , 593 A. 2d 733 (1991). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bryan
green
1 sentence1975Contrariwise, in State v. Bryan, 133 N.J. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.