State v. Montgomery

26 Citing cases

  1. State v. Williams

    No. A-5557-18 (App. Div. Dec. 27, 2022)

    The prosecutor cited State v. Montgomery, a case in which the defendant attacked his defense counsel, court officers, and attempted to flee the courtroom following the close of the State's case. 427 N.J.Super. 403, 405 (App. Div. 2012). The prosecutor argued the judge should not grant a mistrial because one was not granted for far worse conduct in Montgomery.

  2. State v. Williams

    DOCKET NO. A-0038-14T1 (App. Div. Jul. 5, 2016)

    Statev. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 406-07 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997), cert. denied sub nom., Harvey v. New Jersey, 528 U.S. 1085, 120 S. Ct. 811, 145 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2000)). Thus, we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a motion for a mistrial, absent an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice.

  3. State v. E.G.T.

    DOCKET NO. A-4850-17T4 (App. Div. May. 7, 2020)

    "The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, which should grant a mistrial only to prevent an obvious failure of justice." State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 406-07 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997)). In making this determination, we give deference to the trial court, "which is in the best position to gauge the effect of the allegedly prejudicial evidence."

  4. State v. Sweet

    DOCKET NO. A-4454-16T2 (App. Div. Oct. 17, 2019)

    Moreover, the court instructed the jury that they are the sole judges of the evidence, summations are not evidence, and we presume the jurors followed the court's instructions. State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 410 (App. Div. 2012).

  5. State v. Montgomery

    DOCKET NO. A-4675-15T3 (App. Div. Dec. 20, 2017)

    Defendant appealed and we affirmed his convictions, but reversed portions of his sentence and remanded for resentencing. State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 405 (App. Div. 2012). The trial court resentenced defendant in accordance with our remand, which made concurrent part of the aggregate sentence that had been consecutive to the life term.

  6. State v. White

    DOCKET NO. A-2320-11T1 (App. Div. Jan. 9, 2015)

    The judge properly instructed the jury to disregard the statements, and jurors are presumed to follow the court's instructions. State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 410 (App. Div. 2012), certif. denied, 213 N.J. 387 (2013); see also State v. Martini, 187 N.J. 469, 477 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1223, 127 S. Ct. 1285, 167 L. Ed. 2d 104 (2007). Moreover, as to Marinaro's "straight up murder" comment, any prejudice to defendant was abated by the fact that the comment was a generalized remark rather than one tied to defendant specifically.

  7. State v. Pender

    DOCKET NO. A-3344-10T4 (App. Div. Mar. 3, 2014)

    We will not overturn the trial judge's denial of a mistrial motion "absent an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice." State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997), cert. denied sub nom., Harvey v. New Jersey, 528 U.S. 1085, 120 S. Ct. 811, 145 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2000); State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 406-07 (App. Div. 2012), certif. denied, 213 N.J. 387 (2013). On this record, we find no abuse of discretion and no miscarriage of justice.

  8. State v. Montgomery

    63 A.3d 226 (N.J. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Anthony Montgomery, a/k/a Anthony Eleree Montgomery, Anthony Morgan, Naughty Tony and SupremeLower Court Citation or Number: 427 N.J.Super., 403, 48 A.3d 1159 Disposition: Denied.

  9. State v. D.H.P.-D.

    No. A-0791-19 (App. Div. Jul. 22, 2022)

    Arguments, statements, remarks, openings and summation of counsel are not evidence and must not be treated as evidence." We presume the jurors followed the court's instructions. State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J.Super. 403, 410 (App. Div. 2012) (citing State v. Martini, 187 N.J. 469, 477 (2006)). Accordingly, we are convinced the remarks defendant challenges did not mislead jurors or deprive him of a fair trial.

  10. State v. Monell

    No. A-4499-18 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2021)

    A defendant who engages in misconduct in the presence of a jury is not entitled to a mistrial. See State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J.Super. 403, 407-09 (App. Div. 2012). A defendant may not engage in courtroom misconduct "and then expect to be rewarded with a mistrial or new trial "when the trial judge has taken "appropriate cautionary measures, "as the judge did here.