Supreme Court of New Jersey· 6/20/1996

State v. James

Citations

677 A.2d 734
144 N.J. 538
1996 N.J. LEXIS 791

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that problems with a victim's identification can be critical to the defense
holding that the doctrine of completeness does not apply to \separate utterances\
recognizing that “[t]he ‘opening the door’ rule has its limitations. For example, evidence is still subject to exclusion where a court finds that the probative value of the otherwise inadmissible responsive evidence ‘is substantially outweighed by the risk of (a
specifying that this doctrine \provides an adverse party the opportunity to place evidence into its proper context\
noting that, irrespective of the “subtle differences” between the doctrines, courts use them “interchangeably”
stating that evidence may still be excluded when the trial court finds that the probative value “is substantially outweighed by the risk of . . . undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garibaldi

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

36 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.