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.
8 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2025 5 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025See R. 2:10-2; see also State v. Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001) (quoting State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)) (holding a reversal based on plain error requires us to find that the error likely led to an unjust result that is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.") C. 2022A reversal based on plain error requires us to find that the error likely led to an unjust result that is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." State v. Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001) (quoting State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)). | 8 | 8 |
State v. MacOngreen2 sentences2025See R. 2:10-2; see also State v. Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001) (quoting State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)) (holding a reversal based on plain error requires us to find that the error likely led to an unjust result that is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.") C. 2022A reversal based on plain error requires us to find that the error likely led to an unjust result that is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." State v. Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001) (quoting State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2021We will, therefore, disregard the error "unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79 (quoting R. 2:10-2) (citing State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 47 (2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chaplandgreen1 sentence2017We must consider any such error "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2017We must consider any such error "in light of 'the totality of the entire charge, not in isolation.'" State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lee Funderburg (074760)
green
1 sentence2021We will, therefore, disregard the error "unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79 (quoting R. 2:10-2) (citing State v. Robinson, 165 A-2641-17T2 14 N.J. 32 , 47 (2000)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.