Legal Opinion

State v. Anderson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 16, 1992Published

1Dissent · WilentzWilentz, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. The Court, I believe without justification, has declared an act of the Legislature to be unconstitutional.

The Legislature has said that in a trial for perjury, the judge shall decide whether the perjurious statement is “material,” *210that is to say, the judge shall decide whether it “could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.” N.J.S.A. 2C:28-lb. The majority rules that New Jersey’s constitutional right to trial by jury requires a different result. It rules that the State’s constitutional provision guaranteeing a jury trial requires that the jury decide…

Also in this document: Dissent · Wilentz.

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Kungys v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Sinclair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  5. State v. HuntSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API