Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2/4/2019

State v. Brown

Citations

201 A.3d 77
236 N.J. 497

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “the bar of double jeopardy [did] not apply” because there was no evidence or allegation that the State acted willfully “and no evidence of prosecutorial provocation or other willful misconduct”
noting that, under Brady, “suppression by 21 the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”
the Court instructing that on re-trial, a detective could testify about the wife's prior consistent statement under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2), to rebut an express charge of recent fabrication about the wife's testimony regarding her husband's dying declaration
“[T]he bar of double jeopardy is limited to ‘those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial .’” (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Solomon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.