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.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 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. Beygreen2 sentences1992This Court has “ ‘declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors.’ ” State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 141, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 168, 548 A.2d 887 ). “ ‘[T]he Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions ... with respect to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances.’ ” Id. 123 N.J. at 141-42 , 586 A.2d 85 (q 1992This Court has “ ‘declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors.’ ” State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 141, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 168, 548 A.2d 887 ). “ ‘[T]he Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions ... with respect to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances.’ ” Id. 123 N.J. at 141-42 , 586 A.2d 85 (q | 1 | 3 |
In Re Wilsongreen1 sentence2022See Wilson, 81 N.J. at 455-56 ; James R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lakegreen1 sentence2017"The reasons supporting the interest of justice prong must be 'in addition to, and separate from' the mitigating factors which substantially outweigh the aggravating factors and thus satisfy the first prong." State v. Lake, 408 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
David Peek v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Centergreen2 sentences1991We observed that both this Court and the federal courts had "declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury's consideration of mitigating factors," id. at 168 , 548 A. 2d 887 , and determined that "the Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions * * * with respect to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, *142 so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances." Id. at 169 , 548 A. 2d 887 (quoting Peek v. Kemp, 784 F. 2d 1991We observed that both this Court and the federal courts had “declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors,” id. at 168 , 548 A.2d 887 , and determined that “the Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions * * * with respect to mitigating and aggravating circum stances, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances.” Id. at 169 , 548 A.2d 887 (quoting Peek v. Kemp, 784 F.2d 1479, 1 | 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. Marshall
green
2 sentences1992This Court has “ ‘declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors.’ ” State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 141, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 168, 548 A.2d 887 ). “ ‘[T]he Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions ... with respect to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances.’ ” Id. 123 N.J. at 141-42 , 586 A.2d 85 (q 1992This Court has “ ‘declined to prescribe specific language to guide the jury’s consideration of mitigating factors.’ ” State v. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 141, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 168, 548 A.2d 887 ). “ ‘[T]he Constitution does not require specific and detailed instructions ... with respect to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury misunderstands its role in the capital sentencing procedure or misunderstands the meaning and function of mitigating circumstances.’ ” Id. 123 N.J. at 141-42 , 586 A.2d 85 (q | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Ramseur
green
2 sentences1991We rejected a similar independent-weight argument in State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 295 , 524 A.2d 188 , where we held that the trial court “did not inhibit the independent consideration of mitigating factors.” There the court instructed: “If any evidence has been presented with respect to a mitigating factor, you are bound by the law to consider it and weigh it against any aggravating factor or factors that you have found to be present.” Id. at 296, 524 A.2d 188 . 1991We rejected a similar independent-weight argument in State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 295 , 524 A.2d 188 , where we held that the trial court “did not inhibit the independent consideration of mitigating factors.” There the court instructed: “If any evidence has been presented with respect to a mitigating factor, you are bound by the law to consider it and weigh it against any aggravating factor or factors that you have found to be present.” Id. at 296, 524 A.2d 188 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Mills v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1991The State is constrained to agree that the court's charge with respect to the need for juror unanimity before finding the existence of a mitigating factor violates the principles subsequently enunciated in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 [ 108 S.Ct. 1860 ], 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), and State v. Bey II, 112 N.J. 123, 159-60 [ 548 A. 2d 887 ] (1988). [Footnote omitted.] Acknowledging that defendant's death sentence with respect to the underlying murder must, therefore, be vacated, the State seeks to have us remand the matter for a new capital-sentencing proceeding unless the Court determines tha 1991The State is constrained to agree that the court's charge with respect to the need for juror unanimity before finding the existence of a mitigating factor violates the principles subsequently enunciated in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 [ 108 S.Ct. 1860 ], 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), and State v. Bey II, 112 N.J. 123, 159-60 [ 548 A. 2d 887 ] (1988). [Footnote omitted.] Acknowledging that defendant's death sentence with respect to the underlying murder must, therefore, be vacated, the State seeks to have us remand the matter for a new capital-sentencing proceeding unless the Court determines tha | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.