Summary
noting that the admission of certain “other-crimes evidence, as admitted, was too prejudicial to be subject to cure by any limiting instruction”
Summary of this case from James v. RuizOpinion
No. A-68-98.
Argued September 28, 1999.
Decided October 28, 1999
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 316 N.J. Super. 181 (1998).
Charles Ouslander, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Daniel G. Giaquinto, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Ouslander and Kimberly M. Lacken, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs).
Mark H. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Bennett A. Barlyn, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause foramicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney).
Eric Tunis argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Steinberg's opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 316 N.J. Super. 181 (1998).
For affirmance — CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and VERNIERO join in the Court's opinion.
Opposed — None.