opportunity to confront claim (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

opportunity to confront claim in New Jersey

6 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Robinsongreen
nj · 2009 · cited in 5 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2025
2 sentences

2025Defendant's failure to challenge the basis for the stop generally, or the application of N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 specifically, "denied the State the opportunity to confront the claim head-on; it denied the trial court the opportunity to evaluate the claim in an informed and deliberate manner; and it denied any reviewing court the benefit of a robust record within which the claim could be considered." Robinson, 200 N.J. at 21 .

2023Defendant's failure to raise this issue earlier "denied [plaintiff] the opportunity to confront the claim head-on; it denied the trial court the opportunity to evaluate the claim in an informed and deliberate manner; and it denied any reviewing court the benefit of a robust record within which the claim could be considered." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 21 (2009).

35

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. William L. Witt(074468) green
nj · 2015
2 sentences

2022As the Court explained in Witt, "it would be unfair, and contrary to our established rules, to decide the lawfulness of the stop when the State was deprived of the opportunity to establish a record [in accordance with Rule 3:5-7] that might have resolved the issue." 223 N.J. at 419 .

2021Though we do not agree that the State bears no burden in proving the lawfulness of the canine sniff, we do concur with the State's argument that the failure to raise the dog sniff issue until after the evidentiary hearing was completed "deprived [the State] of the opportunity to establish a record that might have resolved the issue through a few questions." Witt, 223 N.J. at 418– 19; see also State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 21 (2009) ("[T]he failure to raise defendant's present claim during the motion to suppress denied the State the opportunity to confront the claim head-on; it denied the tria

22021–2022
State v. Evans green
nj · 2018
1 sentence

2021Evans, 235 N.J. at 133 ; Robinson, 200 N.J. at 15 .

12021–2021

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-5 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

GA 18 (1999–2024) NJ 6 (2017–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check