State v. Singleton
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1ConcurrenceJustice Patterson
I concur with the majority opinion, which reverses the determination of the Appellate Division panel and holds that defendant Boyce Singleton, Ji’. was not entitled to the deific command jury instruction addressed by this Court in State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 611, 569 A.2d 1314 (1990). The majority opinion faithfully follows the reasoning in Worlock and State v. Winder, 200 N.J. 231, 979 A.2d 312 (2009). For the reasons articulated by Justice LaVecchia, I agree that defendant’s belated invocation of the deific command variation of the insanity defense was unsupported in the circumstances…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- GE Solid State, Inc v. Director, Division of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
- State v. RoseSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State v. WorlockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- State v. ColemanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.