State v. Ramirez

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cooper

    256 N.J. 593 (N.J. 2024)   Cited 8 times

    Our law does not require that objections be precisely identical to the issues raised on appeal to avoid plain error review. See State v. Ramirez, 462 N.J. Super. 1, 18, 223 A.3d 1249 (App. Div. 2019) (finding harmless error applicable because the defendants "repeatedly objected to the charge, albeit not precisely on the grounds … enunciated" on appeal), rev’d on other grounds, 246 N.J. 61, 248 A.3d 1205 (2021). Based on the objections raised, and defendant’s attempts to alert the court regarding the inconsistency between the indictment and the relevant statute, we hold that the issue was properly preserved.

  2. State v. Berry

    254 N.J. 129 (N.J. 2023)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing amendments to statute and model jury charge

    In general, "[i]t is difficult to find that a charge that follows the Model Charge so closely constitutes plain error." State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70, 248 A.3d 1205 (2021) (quoting Mogull v. CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 466, 744 A.2d 1186 (2000) ). That is especially true when, as here, the jury charge tracks verbatim a model charge that was explicitly addressed both by this Court and by the Legislature.

  3. State v. Williams

    254 N.J. 8 (N.J. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    The judge here read the relevant portion of the model charge essentially verbatim. See State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70, 248 A.3d 1205 (2021) (discerning no plain error when the trial judge's instruction tracked a model charge verbatim and no objection was made). The judge made clear that the inference of possession was not mandatory, instructed the jury on specific relevant facts that it could consider such as the proximity of Williams and Kelly to the firearm within the car, and repeatedly advised the jurors of the State's overall obligation to prove each element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. Graphnet, Inc. v. Retarus, Inc.

    250 N.J. 24 (N.J. 2022)   Cited 10 times
    Reaffirming that defamation plaintiffs may be entitled to nominal damages

    State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 324, 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (quoting State v. Hipplewith, 33 N.J. 300, 317, 164 A.2d 481 (1960) ); see also Mogull v. CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 468, 744 A.2d 1186 (2000) (taking a similar approach to mistakes in jury sheets, which are not grounds for reversal unless they are "so misleading, confusing, or ambiguous that they produce[ ] an unjust result"). Such error most commonly results from changes made to adapt a model jury charge to the circumstances of a particular case, cf. State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70, 248 A.3d 1205 (2021) ("It is difficult to find that a charge that follows the Model Charge so closely constitutes plain error." (quoting Mogull, 162 N.J. at 466, 744 A.2d 1186 )), but it can also result from a fatal flaw within a charge itself, see, e.g., Williams v. State, 462 Md. 335, 200 A.3d 314, 316, 328 (2019) (finding reversible error "where the trial court gave a pattern jury instruction that erroneously omitted an element of the sole offense for which the petitioner was convicted").

  5. State v. Pena

    No. A-2708-21 (App. Div. Feb. 7, 2025)

    State v. Berry, 254 N.J. 129, 145 (2023) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70 (2021)); see also R.B., 183 N.J. at 325 (instructing trial courts to follow the model jury charges and read them "in their entirety to the jury").

  6. State v. Mejia-Hernandez

    No. A-3745-22 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2024)

    However, here, even if the recantation is believed, the affidavit does not satisfy the Carter test because it does not exonerate defendant of accomplice liability. See State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 67 (2021) ("Although there are three types of accomplice liability under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c)(1), all three require the accomplice to act or fail to act '[w]ith the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense.'"

  7. State v. Howard

    No. A-0609-22 (App. Div. Jun. 20, 2024)

    Additionally, instructions given in accordance with the model jury charge, or which closely track the model jury charge, are generally not considered erroneous. Mogull v. CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 466 (2000); see also State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70 (2021) (finding no plain error where the judge read the model charge verbatim, and no objection to the challenged instruction was made at trial).

  8. State v. W.Z.

    No. A-0611-22 (App. Div. Mar. 26, 2024)

    Mogull v. CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449, 466 (2000). See State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 70 (2021) (finding no plain error where the judge read the model jury charge verbatim, and no objection to the instruction was made at trial).

  9. State v. Kimbrough

    No. A-0777-21 (App. Div. Jun. 19, 2023)

    "Under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c)(1), a person may be deemed 'an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if . . . [w]ith the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense,' that person takes one of the courses of action specified in subsections -6(c)(1)(a) through -6(c)(1)(c)." State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 65 (2021) (second alteration in original). For a defendant to be convicted as an accomplice, "he must be shown to have shared the same criminal intent to commit the substantive offense as the principal."

  10. State v. Aguilar-Lopez

    No. A-0263-20 (App. Div. Jun. 12, 2023)

    This is so because, contrary to the State's assertion, the jury could have concluded that while defendant participated in the attack on the victim, he did not share the same criminal state of mind as his co-defendants who delivered the fatal stab wounds, i.e., defendant did not act purposely or knowingly to cause the victim's death or serious bodily injury resulting in his death. See, e.g., State v. Ramirez, 246 N.J. 61, 67 (2021) (quoting State v. Whitaker, 200 N.J. 444, 458 (2009)) ("'An accomplice is only guilty of the same crime committed by the principal if he shares the same criminal state of mind as the principal.' However, an accomplice may be guilty of a lesser crime if their state of mind is different from the principal's.")