10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 126 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Lee Funderburg (074760).
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Lee Funderburg (074760) Anchor | green | “the mere possibility of an unjust result is not enough.” | 34 |
| 2 | State v. Sanchez-Medina | green | “to determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the state's case.” | 16 |
| 3 | State v. Jordan | green | “in the context of a jury trial, the possibility must be 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.” | 14 |
| 4 | State v. Santamaria | green | “the 'high standard' used in plain error analysis 'provides a strong incentive for counsel to interpose a timely objection, enabling the trial court to forestall or correct a potential error.” | 12 |
| 5 | State v. Michael Ross II (077458) (Middlesex and Statewide) | green | “the possibility of an unjust result must be 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.” | 11 |
| 6 | State v. McLean | green | “limited to testimony that will assist the trier of fact either by helping to explain the witness's testimony or by shedding light on the determination of a disputed factual issue.” | 10 |
| 7 | State v. Sanchez-Medina | green | “the error must be evaluated 'in light of the overall strength of the state's case.” | 9 |
| 8 | State v. Crisoforo Montalvo (077331) (Monmouth and Statewide) | green | “plain error requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity…” | 6 |
| 9 | State v. Santamaria | green | “is a 'high bar,' requiring reversal only where the possibility of an injustice is 'real' and 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.