State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant v. David Hernandez, Defendant-Respondent

Summary

The Court rejected a per se ban on uncorroborated accomplice testimony of other crimes, held that such testimony can satisfy the clear‑and‑convincing standard if the trial court’s gatekeeping analysis supports it, found the trial court’s limiting instruction inadequate, and affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal with a remand for a new trial and a Rule 104 hearing. Justice VERNIERO, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the disposition but argued that the adequacy of the jury instruction is a close plain‑error question and that the Attorney General’s acknowledgment may withdraw the issue.