Supreme Court of New Jersey· 11/21/1966

State v. Farmer

Citations

48 N.J. 145
224 A.2d 481
1966 N.J. LEXIS 156

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing “the right of society to have its trial processes applied fully and fairly in the due administration of the criminal law”
explaining that the difference in language between the federal and state constitutional provisions was “without distinction in meaning” in light of the “historical evolution and treatment” of the protections against double jeopardy in our state
observing that if a court declares a mistrial “to safeguard the right of the defendant to a full and fair trial . . . there is even less basis for a claim of trespass upon the privilege against double jeopardy ”
“[A]ppellate reluctance to interfere with a sua sponte declaration of a mistrial should be even more pronounced where it is 26 plain that a primary motive for the trial judge’s course was solicitude for the defendant’s interests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Francis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

61 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.