Summary
denying certification but agreeing that the Appellate Division's decision that the use of "and/or" in a criminal jury instruction "injected ambiguity" in that case, but, unlike the Appellate Division in its published decision, the Court expressly noted that it did not intend to prohibit the use in a jury charge of "and/or" in all instances
Summary of this case from 520 Realty, P.C. v. KniffinOpinion
06-24-2016
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Petitioner, v. Victor GONZALEZ, Defendant–Respondent.
Opinion It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
The Court agrees with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the use of “and/or” in the jury instruction in this case injected ambiguity into the charge. See State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J.Super. 62, 75–76, 130 A. 3d 1250 (App.Div.2016). The criticism of the use of “and/or” is limited to the circumstances in which it was used in this case. Id. at 71–72, 130 A. 3d 1250.