Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

State v. Bridges

(1993)

Supreme Court of New Jersey - 628 A.2d 270

tl;dr:

Where the criminal act was an objectively foreseeable consequence of a criminal conspiracy, the co-conspirator could be held liable even without the requisite mens rea for the substantive crime.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for State v. Bridges

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the State v. Bridges case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingState v. Bridges case brief facts & holding

Facts:The defendant was at a party and got into a...

Holding:The court reversed the trial court and held that, since...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the State v. Bridges case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
State v. Bridges | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: HANDLER, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy and murder charges, but the Appellate Division reversed the substantive criminal convictions, stating that co-conspirator liability for substantive crimes requires specific intent. The Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the conspiracy and armed robbery convictions, but reversed the kidnapping and armed assault on police convictions. The Court reaffirmed the principles of co-conspirator liability, stating that a conspirator is responsible for all criminal acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The lower court's interpretation of the Pinkerton rule was incorrect. The trial court's instruction to the jury was broadly consistent with the standard expressed in Stein but did not sufficiently inform the jury in accordance with the standard that should govern the jury's determination of criminal liability.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the State v. Bridges case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: O’HERN, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The court's decision to impose a life sentence based on a negligent appraisal of the risk of someone committing a homicide is not in line with the Code of Criminal Justice. The law of conspiracy serves to protect society from the danger of concerted criminal activity and inchoate or uncompleted crimes. The Pinkerton doctrine is a form of accomplice liability under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6b(4), requiring that an accomplice share the criminal purpose of the actor to be convicted of a substantive offense. The Court's decision to penalize a conspirator more severely than a principal or accomplice in a criminal combination contradicts the principles of justice established by the Code. The Code's provisions on "Liability for the conduct of another; complicity" lack precision, but the Court should interpret it in a way that furthers the general purposes of the Code and is consistent with its overall structure.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the State v. Bridges case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the State v. Bridges case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

State v. Bridges

Chat for State v. Bridges
brief-740
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.