State v. Wright
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | State v. Wright, 332 A.2d 606, 66 N.J. 466 (N.J. 1975) |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1975 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sarah WRIGHT, Defendant-Respondent. |
Carl W. Swanson, Jr., Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (John S. Kuhlthau, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Jane G. Kleinfeld, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-respondent (Stanley Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the conviction for manslaughter is reinstated and the conviction for child neglect is vacated substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Allcorn in his dissenting opinion reported at 132 N.J.Super. 130, 147,322 A.2d 614--625 (1974).
For reversal: Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices JACOBS, MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN PASHMAN and CLIFFORD and Judge KOLOVSKY--7.
For affirmance: None.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
20 cases
-
State v. Atkins
... ... Kozarski, 143 N.J.Super. 12, 17, 362 A.2d 598 (App.Div.), certif. den. 71 N.J. 532, 366 A.2d 687 (1976); see State v. Wright, 132 N.J.Super. 130, 148-150, 332 A.2d 614 (App.Div.1974), rev'd on dissenting opinion of Allcorn, J., 66 N.J. 466, 332 A.2d 606 (1975); State v. Rajnai, 132 N.J.Super. 530, 334 A.2d 364 (App.Div.1975) ... However, mere similarity or identity in the crimes charged is not ... ...
-
State v. M.L.
...of defendant to commit crime. State v. Wright, 132 N.J.Super. 130, 148, 332 A.2d 614 (App.Div.1974), rev'd on dissent, 66 N.J. 466, 332 A.2d 606 (1975). Evidence of the commission by defendant of the same or similar acts prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the offense in questi......
-
State v. Moorman
...unconnected with the direct cause of the child's death was admissible as proof of absence of accident or mistake. State v. Wright, 66 N.J. 466, 468, 332 A.2d 606 (1975), rev'g on dissent, 132 N.J.Super. 130, 148, 332 A.2d 614 (App.Div.1974) (Allcorn, J.A.D., dissenting); State v. Elmore, 20......
-
State v. Zarinsky
...only to a defendant's 'criminal disposition' and that which is relevant to a particular fact in issue before the jury. State v. Wright, 66 N.J. 466, 332 A.2d 606 (1975), adopting dissenting opinion, 132 N.J.Super. 130, 148, 332 A.2d 614 (App.Div.1974) . Evidence of defendant's prior conduct......
Get Started for Free