U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

NEW JERSEY'S OTHER-CRIMES RULE AND THE EVIDENCE COMMITTEE'S ABROGATION OF ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

NCJ Number
145779
Journal
Seton Hall Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (1993) Pages: 394-446
Author(s)
A G Lopez
Date Published
1993
Length
53 pages
Annotation
The introduction of extrinsic evidence of a defendant's other crimes is one of the most important and controversial means of proof in the resolution of criminal and civil disputes, and recently adopted rules of evidence in New Jersey do not appear to minimize the controversy.
Abstract
Even though extrinsic evidence of a defendant's other crimes generally has tremendous probative value, its potential for misleading and confusing the jury has limited its use. Recognizing the importance of such evidence, courts have struggled to balance the probative value of other crimes evidence with the individual's right to a fair trial. This is particularly important in criminal trials where evidence of other crimes is admissible for purposes other than proving the defendant's character or propensity for misconduct. Permissible purposes for admitting other crimes evidence include identity, motive, preparation, plan, and intent. To counter the prejudicial impact of other crimes evidence on the jury, trial judges must often issue limiting instructions to explaining the purposes for introducing such evidence. Thus, an improper or inadequate limiting instruction may be grounds for reversal if it is likely to lead to an unjust result. The initial development of New Jersey's common law propensity rule is reviewed from the early 19th Century until its codification in 1967. Problems encountered in the application of other crimes evidence in New Jersey courts are examined, as well as newly adopted rules of evidence and their potential impact on the resolution of criminal disputes where other crimes are offered in evidence against the accused. The author contends that New Jersey's recently adopted rules of evidence contravene the logical evolution of evidence laws in the State because they do not settle the status of the role of common law and do not foster predictability and precision. 296 footnotes

Downloads

No download available

Availability