State v. Muhammad
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
359 N.J. Super. 361 (2003)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Jamal Muhammad (defendant) was charged with murder. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) called Stephon Duggan to testify. Duggan was facing other charges and had secured an agreement with the prosecution for a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony. Based on this agreement, the defense sought to impeach Duggan’s credibility on cross-examination by suggesting that he had fabricated his testimony solely to reduce his sentence. In response, the prosecution introduced consistent statements Duggan had made to police prior to trial. These prior statements were sworn and recorded. Muhammad objected, arguing that the recorded statements were made after Duggan had signed the agreement with law enforcement. Muhammad argued that the rule permitting the admission of prior consistent statements required that the prior statement be made before any improper influence or motive arose. The trial court overruled the objection. Muhammad was convicted, and he appealed, arguing that Duggan’s prior, tape-recorded statements should not have been admitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lisa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
