State v. Cabbell
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Albin
The primary issue in this appeal is whether defendants were provided the opportunity to cross-examine two key State’s witnesses, Karine Martin and Tyson Privott, consistent with the confrontation-clause requirements of our Federal and State Constitutions. We conclude that defendants were denied their constitutional right to confront Martin, but not Privott.
In a recorded statement to the police, Martin identified the two defendants as participants in the shooting death of Paul Lecaros. *318Before the jury, she admitted that the prior statement was truthful but refused to respond to further…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- State v. LazoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- State v. SterlingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
- State v. Reginald Roach (068874)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014
- State v. CarreroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
- State of New Jersey v. Kason D. HockettNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2016
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.