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 2013–2022 2 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. DRgreen2 sentences2022Observing that “[a]dding a crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege would amount to a ‘fundamental change’ with ‘serious and far-reaching consequences,’” we initiated the legislative process envisioned by the Evidence Act and “decline[d] to adopt the change on our own.” Id. at 243 (quoting State v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348, 352, 375 (1988)). 23 On November 9, 2015, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22 to create a crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege. 2014D.R., supra, 109 N.J. at 352, 375-76 , 537 A.2d 667 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Yolanda Terry and Teron Savoygreen2 sentences2022The Court held that N.J.R.E. 509 “should be amended to include a crime-fraud exception that is similar to the exceptions that apply in federal and state courts throughout the nation as well as other evidentiary rules in New Jersey.” Id. at 241 . (pp. 20-23) 2. 2022Bailey’s conviction of two counts of second-degree official misconduct, the Court considers whether the crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege governed text messages that defendant exchanged with her husband on September 16, 2014 -- after the Court proposed the exception in State v. Terry, 218 N.J. 224 (2014), but before the Legislature enacted it into law via L. 2015, c. 138, § 2. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Szemplered2 sentences2013Those same public policy concerns support applying the crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege. “‘[Sjince the [marital communications] privilege has as its only effect the suppression of relevant evidence, its scope should be confined as narrowly as is consistent with the reasonable protection of marital communications.’ ” Szemple, supra, 135 N.J. at 415 , 640 A.2d 817 (quoting 1 McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 82, at 303). 2013Those same public policy concerns support applying the crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege. “‘[Sjince the [marital communications] privilege has as its only effect the suppression of relevant evidence, its scope should be confined as narrowly as is consistent with the reasonable protection of marital communications.’ ” Szemple, supra, 135 N.J. at 415 , 640 A.2d 817 (quoting 1 McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 82, at 303). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fourniergreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Fournier, 965 A.2d 1091, 1094 (N.H. 2009) (construing a New Hampshire statute, N.H. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manngreen1 sentence2022See State v. Patel, 239 N.J. 424 , 435 (2019) (“We review issues of law de novo and owe no deference to the interpretive conclusions of either the Appellate Division or Law Division.”); State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 , 337 19 (2010) (“[A] reviewing court owes no deference to the trial court in deciding matters of law.”).4 B. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Demetrius Cope (074206).green1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530, 555-56 (2016) (agreeing 31 The Legislature could have directed that the crime-fraud exception would apply to marital communications that preceded the amendment’s effective date. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Selsergreen1 sentence2020To establish the crime-fraud exception and thus the right to question an attorney before a grand jury about communications with a client, the State must establish "'something to give colour to the charge'; there must be 'prima facie evidence that it has some foundation in fact.'" In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 409 (1954) (quoting Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933)). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020To establish the crime-fraud exception and thus the right to question an attorney before a grand jury about communications with a client, the State must establish "'something to give colour to the charge'; there must be 'prima facie evidence that it has some foundation in fact.'" In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 409 (1954) (quoting Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933)). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Steingreen2 sentences2013Ibid.; accord In re Stein, 1 N.J. 228, 286 , 62 A.2d 801 (1949). 2013Ibid.; accord In re Stein, 1 N.J. 228, 286 , 62 A.2d 801 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). 2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gianakosgreen1 sentence2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Irving Kahn and Minnie Kahngreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Kahn, 471 F.2d 191 , 193-95 & n. 8 (7th Cir.1972) (rejecting the defendant’s reliance on 18 U.S.C.A. § 2517 (4) because the court found a crime-fraud exception to the federal marital communications privilege). 12 V. 2013See United States v. Kahn, 471 F.2d 191 , 193-95 & n. 8 (7th Cir.1972) (rejecting the defendant’s reliance on 18 U.S.C.A. § 2517 (4) because the court found a crime-fraud exception to the federal marital communications privilege). 12 V. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Krankelgreen2 sentences2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). 2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). | 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. Mauti
green
2 sentences2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave 2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Byrd
green
1 sentence2022Observing that “[a]dding a crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege would amount to a ‘fundamental change’ with ‘serious and far-reaching consequences,’” we initiated the legislative process envisioned by the Evidence Act and “decline[d] to adopt the change on our own.” Id. at 243 (quoting State v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348, 352, 375 (1988)). 23 On November 9, 2015, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22 to create a crime-fraud exception to the marital communications privilege. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. J.L.G.
green
1 sentence2022Considered in its entirety, the trial record does not suggest that the improper admission of the text messages under the crime-fraud exception to the marital privilege “led to an unjust verdict -- that is, a possibility ‘sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt’ that ‘the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.’” J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 306 (quoting Macon, 57 N.J. at 335-36 ); see also Pressler & Verniero, cmt. on R. 1:7-5. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carmell v. Texas
green
1 sentence2022R. 23-40 (noting that privileges “reflect legislative determinations of public policy considered to be more important than the evidence excluded”) . 30 Moreover, the crime-fraud exception to a privilege is not in the category of evidentiary rules that are “ordinarily evenhanded, in the sense that they may benefit either the State or the defendant in any given case.” Carmell, 529 U.S. at 533 n.23. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. MacOn
green
1 sentence2022Considered in its entirety, the trial record does not suggest that the improper admission of the text messages under the crime-fraud exception to the marital privilege “led to an unjust verdict -- that is, a possibility ‘sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt’ that ‘the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.’” J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 306 (quoting Macon, 57 N.J. at 335-36 ); see also Pressler & Verniero, cmt. on R. 1:7-5. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Terry
green
2 sentences2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave 2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave 2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences2014Defendants argue that if a crime-fraud exception is adopted, it should not apply to them because the State has not shown that they “were furthering a criminal activity ... [or] that they conspired to commit a crime.” If the Legislature and Governor approve a crime-fraud exception to Rule 509 before defendants’ *246 trial begins, and if the exception were found to be available in this case, see Rose, supra, 425 N.J.Super. 463 , 42 A.3d 172 (rejecting ex post facto challenge and holding that forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to hearsay rule applied to wrongdoing that occurred before new rule’s 2014Defendants argue that if a crime-fraud exception is adopted, it should not apply to them because the State has not shown that they “were furthering a criminal activity ... [or] that they conspired to commit a crime.” If the Legislature and Governor approve a crime-fraud exception to Rule 509 before defendants’ *246 trial begins, and if the exception were found to be available in this case, see Rose, supra, 425 N.J.Super. 463 , 42 A.3d 172 (rejecting ex post facto challenge and holding that forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to hearsay rule applied to wrongdoing that occurred before new rule’s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Mauti
green
2 sentences2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave 2014In addition, the marital communications privilege continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage even if the parties divorce, see id. at 533, 33 A.3d 1216 ; N.J.R.E. 509; the spousal privilege ceases to apply once the marriage ends, State v. Mauti, 416 N.J.Super. 178, 193 , 3 A.3d 624 (App.Div.2010), affd, Mauti, supra, 208 N.J. 519 , 33 A.3d 1216 ; State v. Brown, 113 N.J.Super. 348, 353 , 273 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1971). 2 The State conceded at oral argument before the Appellate Division, see Terry, supra, 430 N.J.Super. at 589 , 66 A.3d 177 and in its motion for leave | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Custodian of Records
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 192, 19 A.3d 1032 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Matthews v. Hoagland
green
1 sentence2013Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N.J. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Richardson
green
2 sentences2013Prior to the Evidence Act of 1960, N.J.S.A. 2A84A-1 to -49, the attorney-client privilege, like its crime-fraud exception, had “never been formally set forth in either constitutional or statutory provision.” Richardson, supra, 31 N.J. at 396 , 157 A.2d 695 . 2013Prior to the Evidence Act of 1960, N.J.S.A. 2A84A-1 to -49, the attorney-client privilege, like its crime-fraud exception, had “never been formally set forth in either constitutional or statutory provision.” Richardson, supra, 31 N.J. at 396 , 157 A.2d 695 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2013Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 , 919 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977); People v. Krankel, 105 Ill.App.3d 988 , 61 Ill.Dec. 565 , 434 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (1982); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 , 380 A.2d 49, 54-55 (1977); State v. Gianakos, 644 N.W.2d 409, 420 (Minn.2002). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.