Legal Opinion

State v. Cabbell

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 26, 2011PublishedCited by 35 opinions

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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State v. LazoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
  2. State v. SterlingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
  3. State v. Reginald Roach (068874)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014
  4. State v. CarreroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
  5. State of New Jersey v. Kason D. HockettNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2016

30 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