requiring limiting instructions in bifurcated trials since it was "mindful of the obvious potential for prejudice that the evidence of a prior felony conviction might have in any case"
How later courts described this case
- requiring limiting instructions in bifurcated trials since it was "mindful of the obvious potential for prejudice that the evidence of a prior felony conviction might have in any case"
- finding "that any potential for prejudice can be ameliorated by the sanitization of the predicate offense"
- “Doubt as to the criminality of [the defendant’s] conduct may influence the jury when it considers the possession element.” (quotation omitted) (alteration in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by State v. Bailey, 231 N.J. 474 (2018)
180 N.J. 572, 585 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds by Bailey, 231 N.J. at 490
The opinion
Justice ZAZZALI
joins in this dissent.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and WALLACE — 4.
For affirmance — Justices ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 2.