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 1994–2002 0 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. Cofieldgreen2 sentences2002See also, on the need for a specific delineation of the proper purpose for which other-crime evidence is admitted, State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 157-58 , 627 A.2d 144 (1993); State v. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 337, 605 A.2d 230 ; State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 305 , 558 A.2d 833 (1989). 2002See also, on the need for a specific delineation of the proper purpose for which other-crime evidence is admitted, State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 157-58 , 627 A.2d 144 (1993); State v. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 337, 605 A.2d 230 ; State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 305 , 558 A.2d 833 (1989). | 2 | 4 |
State v. GSgreen2 sentences2002Rather, in detailing the proper purposes for which the evidence could be considered, the trial court engaged in what this court has described as “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule,” which failed to “narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence....” State v. G.S., 278 N.J.Super. 151, 163-64 , 650 A.2d 819 (App.Div.1994), aff'd, and quoted with approval, State v. G.S., supra, 145 N.J. at 472, 678 A.2d 1092 . 2002Rather, in detailing the proper purposes for which the evidence could be considered, the trial court engaged in what this court has described as “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule,” which failed to “narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence....” State v. G.S., 278 N.J.Super. 151, 163-64 , 650 A.2d 819 (App.Div.1994), aff'd, and quoted with approval, State v. G.S., supra, 145 N.J. at 472, 678 A.2d 1092 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Olivergreen2 sentences2002See also, on the need for a specific delineation of the proper purpose for which other-crime evidence is admitted, State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 157-58 , 627 A.2d 144 (1993); State v. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 337, 605 A.2d 230 ; State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 305 , 558 A.2d 833 (1989). 2002See also, on the need for a specific delineation of the proper purpose for which other-crime evidence is admitted, State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 157-58 , 627 A.2d 144 (1993); State v. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 337, 605 A.2d 230 ; State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 305 , 558 A.2d 833 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. G.S.green2 sentences2002Rather, in detailing the proper purposes for which the evidence could be considered, the trial court engaged in what this court has described as “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule,” which failed to “narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence....” State v. G.S., 278 N.J.Super. 151, 163-64 , 650 A.2d 819 (App.Div.1994), aff'd, and quoted with approval, State v. G.S., supra, 145 N.J. at 472, 678 A.2d 1092 . 2002Rather, in detailing the proper purposes for which the evidence could be considered, the trial court engaged in what this court has described as “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule,” which failed to “narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence....” State v. G.S., 278 N.J.Super. 151, 163-64 , 650 A.2d 819 (App.Div.1994), aff'd, and quoted with approval, State v. G.S., supra, 145 N.J. at 472, 678 A.2d 1092 . | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Stevens
green
2 sentences1996In this case, the Appellate Division noted that “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule is insufficient____ The court must narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence as illustrative of a proper charge.” 278 N.J.Super. at 163-64, 650 A.2d 819 (quoting Stevens, supra, 115 N.J. at 309 , 558 A.2d 833 ). 1996In this case, the Appellate Division noted that “[a] mere recitation of the generalities of the rule is insufficient____ The court must narrowly focus the jury’s attention on the specific use of the other-crime evidence as illustrative of a proper charge.” 278 N.J.Super. at 163-64, 650 A.2d 819 (quoting Stevens, supra, 115 N.J. at 309 , 558 A.2d 833 ). | 3 | 1996–2002 |