Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Burgos

200 N.J. Super. 6 (App. Div. 1985)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Burgos

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Bryant

    217 N.J. Super. 72 (App. Div. 1987)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that binding and gagging of robbery victims to facilitate defendant's flight from premises constituted more than confinement incidental to underlying robbery and supported kidnapping conviction

    Defendant attacks the admission of James' statement on both hearsay and confrontation grounds. The State supports the admissibility of the statement under Evid.R. 63(1)(a) and the holding of State v. Burgos, 200 N.J. Super. 6, 10-12 (App. Div.), certif. den. 101 N.J. 304 (1985).

  2. State v. Brown

    138 N.J. 481 (N.J. 1994)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where single juror could disagree with verdict if given proper instruction on nonunanimity, but incorrect one is given, reversal is required

    In State v. Bryant, 217 N.J. Super. 72, 524 A.2d 1291, certif. denied, 108 N.J. 202, 528 A.2d 24, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 978, 108 S.Ct. 490, 98 L.Ed.2d 488 (1987), the Appellate Division squarely addressed the issue and, although acknowledging that courts were divided on the question, determined that the witness's prior inconsistent statement was admissible under the hearsay exception and did not violate the defendant's federal and state constitutional right to confront witnesses. Id. at 77-79, 524 A.2d 1291. The court reached that same conclusion in State v. Burgos, 200 N.J. Super. 6, 10-12, 490 A.2d 316 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 101 N.J. 304, 501 A.2d 961 (1985).

  3. State v. Schoolcraft

    183 W. Va. 579 (W. Va. 1990)   Cited 16 times

    This accords with a number of jurisdictions which take the view that where a witness testifies about events which are covered in a prior out-of-court statement and the witness denies making the out-of-court statement or indicates no present recollection of its contents, then impeachment by a prior statement is permissible. It is also recognized that the trial court has the discretion to make the determination on admissibility. E.g., State v. Butler, 207 Conn. 619, 543 A.2d 270 (1988); People v. Perri, 381 Ill. 244, 44 N.E.2d 857 (1942); People v. Malone, 180 Mich. App. 347, 447 N.W.2d 157 (1989); State v. Marco, 220 Neb. 96, 368 N.W.2d 470 (1985); State v. Burgos, 200 N.J. Super. 6, 490 A.2d 316 (1985), cert. denied, 101 N.J. 304, 501 A.2d 961 (1985); State v. Miles, 73 Wn.2d 67, 436 P.2d 198 (1968); State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425, 247 N.W.2d 80 (1976). See Annot., 99 A.L.R.3d 906 (1980).

  4. State v. Burgos

    501 A.2d 962 (N.J. 1985)

    Petition for certification denied. (See 200 N.J. Super. 6)

  5. State v. Caraballo

    330 N.J. Super. 545 (App. Div. 2000)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that defendant was deprived of fair trial, in part, because witnesses were required to testify even though they refused to take oath or make affirmation

    Also, Burgos feigned a lack of recollection regarding the facts contained in his prior statement. See State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481, 540 (1994); State v. Bryant, 217 N.J. Super. 72, 77-79 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 108 N.J. 202, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 978, 108 S.Ct. 490, 98 L.Ed.2d 488 (1987); State v. Burgos, 200 N.J. Super. 6, 10-12 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 101 N.J. 304 (1985). As we have pointed out, however, Burgos should not have been permitted to testify because he refused to take an oath or make an affirmation.