Supreme Court of New Jersey· 10/18/1990

State v. Harvey

Citations

581 A.2d 483
121 N.J. 407
1990 N.J. LEXIS 186

How courts have described this case

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

asserting that medical expert testimony must be couched in terms of reasonable medical certainty or probability; opinions as to possibility are inadmissible.
finding that a witness' testimony about a footprint's appearance \involved in no sense the knowledge of an expert....\
finding that neither comparison between shoe print and proffered shoe, nor proposition that “shorter people tend to have smaller feet” required expert testimony
acknowledging that retroactivity issues in “criminal-procedure decisions implicating rights guaranteed under the federal constitution” are governed by Griffith retroactivity analysis
finding that neither comparison between shoe print and proffered shoe, nor proposition that \shorter people tend to have smaller feet\ required expert testimony
excluding expert testimony about bloody sneaker print because State “did not provide evidence that anyone in the scientific community other than [the expert] himself vouch[ed] for his methods”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clifford, O'Hern, Stein, Handler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

59 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.