Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Ragland

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 21, 1986Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHandler, J.

The Court in this case sustains defendant’s claim that in the trial on the charge of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, the trial court, by referring the jury to its prior finding of possession, in effect directed the return of a guilty verdict, thereby denying defendant’s right to a jury trial through what amounts to an improper use of collateral estoppel. As a result, there must be a reversal of defendant’s conviction. I agree. In *214addition, as noted by the Court, the trial judge instructed the jury that “it must find [the defendant] guilty” if it determined beyond a reasonable…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Watts v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. Horning v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  5. United States v. DoughertyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972

20 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