A prosecution of a defendant for a violation of the same provision of the statutes based upon the same facts as a former prosecution is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances:
a. The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal by a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. A finding of guilty of a lesser included offense is an acquittal of the greater inclusive offense, although the conviction is subsequently set aside.
b. The former prosecution was terminated, after the complaint had been filed or the indictment found, by a final order or judgment for the defendant, which has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and which necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact or a legal proposition that must be established for conviction of the offense. This subsection shall not apply to an order or judgment quashing an indictment prior to trial.
c. The former prosecution resulted in a conviction. There is a conviction if the prosecution resulted in a judgment of conviction which has not been reversed or vacated, a verdict of guilty which has not been set aside and which is capable of supporting a judgment, or a plea of guilty accepted by the court. In the latter two cases failure to enter judgment must be for a reason other than a motion of the defendant.
d. The former prosecution was improperly terminated. Except as provided in this subsection, there is an improper termination of a prosecution if the termination is for reasons not amounting to an acquittal, and it takes place after the jury was impaneled and sworn or, in a trial before a court without a jury, after the first witness was sworn but before findings were rendered by the trier of facts. Termination under any of the following circumstances is not improper:
(1) The defendant consents to the termination or waives, by motion to dismiss or otherwise, his right to object to the termination.
(2) The trial court finds that the termination is necessary because of the failure of the jury to agree upon a verdict after a reasonable time for deliberation has been allowed.
(3) The trial court finds that the termination is required by a sufficient legal reason and a manifest or absolute or overriding necessity.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Rechtschaffer (1976)
nj · cites it 4×
“See also Section 2C:1-9(d) of the proposed New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, now pending before the Legislature as Assembly Bill No.”
State of New Jersey v. Quaheem Johnson (2014)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 4×
“Defendant's circumstances raise a question of first impression: whether a trial court improperly terminates a defendant's prosecution, within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9, by accepting a partial verdict where the jury is deadlocked as to greater, charged offenses, but is…”
State v. Yoskowitz (1989)
nj · cites it 2×
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and subsequent prosecution is for: * * * * * * * * (3) The same conduct, unless (a) the offense of which defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is…”
State v. King (1987)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction, or in an improper termination as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless (1) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the…”
State v. Colon (2005)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is for: * * * (3) The same conduct, unless (a) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is…”
State v. Reid (2018)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 4×
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is for : .”
State v. Di Ventura (1982)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction, or in an improper termination as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless (1) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the…”
State v. Goodman (1983)
nj · cites it 2×
“The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction, or in an improper termination as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless (1) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the…”
State v. Veney (2009)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is for: (1) Any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the first prosecution; or.”
State v. Catanoso (1993)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is for: .”
State v. Walters (1995)
njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2×
“The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction, or in an improper termination as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless (1) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the…”
State v. Leonard (1989)
njsuperctappdiv
“I'm satisfied that this is a situation within the meaning and intent of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9(d) which provides in sub paragraph 3 that the Court can terminate a proceeding and reinstitute it later on when the Court finds that termination is required by sufficient legal reason and a…”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(a) — 1 case
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(a)(3) — 1 case
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(c) — 2 cases
State v. Reid (2018)
njsuperctappdiv
“The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 2C:1-9 and the subsequent prosecution is for : .”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(d) — 6 cases
State v. Rechtschaffer (1976)
nj
“See also Section 2C:1-9(d) of the proposed New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, now pending before the Legislature as Assembly Bill No.”
State of New Jersey v. Quaheem Johnson (2014)
njsuperctappdiv
“Defendant's circumstances raise a question of first impression: whether a trial court improperly terminates a defendant's prosecution, within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9, by accepting a partial verdict where the jury is deadlocked as to greater, charged offenses, but is…”
State v. Leonard (1989)
njsuperctappdiv
“I'm satisfied that this is a situation within the meaning and intent of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9(d) which provides in sub paragraph 3 that the Court can terminate a proceeding and reinstitute it later on when the Court finds that termination is required by sufficient legal reason and a…”
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(d)(1) — 2 cases
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(d)(2) — 1 case
— N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-9(d)(3) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.