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 2005–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2017The violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation "is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are 'able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Cabbell, supra, 207 N.J. at 338 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L. 2017The violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation "is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are 'able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Cabbell, supra, 207 N.J. at 338 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Dwayne E. Slaughter (070372)green2 sentences2026See State v. Slaughter, 219 N.J. 104, 118-19 (2014) ("[W]here the trial court commits a A-1271-23 31 constitutional error, that error is to be considered 'a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (quoting State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 338 (2011))). 2026See Slaughter, 219 N.J. at 118-19 ("[W]here the trial court commits a constitutional error, that error is to be considered 'a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (quoting Cabbell, 207 N.J. at 338 )). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Cabbellgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Slaughter, 219 N.J. 104, 118-19 (2014) ("[W]here the trial court commits a A-1271-23 31 constitutional error, that error is to be considered 'a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (quoting State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 338 (2011))). 2026See Slaughter, 219 N.J. at 118-19 ("[W]here the trial court commits a constitutional error, that error is to be considered 'a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (quoting Cabbell, 207 N.J. at 338 )). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Castagnagreen2 sentences2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, where the trial court commits a constitutional error, that error is to be considered “a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. at 338 , 24 A.3d 758 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , *119 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “ ‘[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” State v. Dennis, 185 N.J. 300, 302 , 885 A.2d 429 (2005) (quoting Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 23-24 , 87 2014Moreover, where the trial court commits a constitutional error, that error is to be considered “a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. at 338 , 24 A.3d 758 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , *119 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “ ‘[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” State v. Dennis, 185 N.J. 300, 302 , 885 A.2d 429 (2005) (quoting Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 23-24 , 87 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kareem T. Tillery (079832) (Essex County and Statewide)green1 sentence2026In State v. Tillery, our Supreme Court noted that whether the defendant's Miranda waiver was voluntary presented a "close question," but ultimately concluded that any error in the trial court's admission of the statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 238 N.J. 293, 302 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Corsarogreen1 sentence2025Defendant's non- compliance deprived the AG of the right to participate before the trial court and this court on appeal.4 Were we to look beyond this fatal error, defendant's generalized assertions fail to establish the Act is inconsistent with prevailing jurisprudence, which Corsaro, 107 N.J. at 348 ("The question . . . is whether [the purported error] was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'") (citing R. 2:10-2). 4 Rule 4:28-4 states in pertinent part: (a) Actions Involving Validity of Statute, Ordinance, etc.; Unknown Owners. (1) State enactments; unknown owners. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2025Rule 2:10-2 sets forth the plain error standard: "Any error or omission shall be disregarded by the appellate court unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result . . . ." Under Strickland, a defendant must only show "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Gideon, 244 N.J. at 551 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lazo
green
2 sentences2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. RB
green
2 sentences2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 2013The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.’ ” See State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 , 34 A.3d 1233 (2012) (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (alterations in original)); State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 337-38 , 24 A.3d 758 (2011) (“The violation of defendants’ federal constitutional right is a fatal error, mandating a new trial, unless we are ‘able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 1 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Dishon
green
1 sentence2005This procedure had the effect of nullifying defendant's "substantial right" to a full and probing voir dire in his presence, and to exercise all of his peremptory challenges predicated on his "feel" of each juror's reaction to the questioning. *328 [ Id. at 270, 271, 272-73 , 687 A. 2d 1074 .] The error complained of here—that defendant was required to utilize peremptory challenges before voir dire was complete— is on the same plane as the error found in State v. Dishon . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.