Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cumulative Effect of Errors

Text: Defendant argues that if we find, as we do, that none of the trial errors, standing alone, warrant reversal of his death sentence, then the sentence cannot withstand their cumulative weight. Together, defendant argues, the trial court errors contributed to his death sentence, making it constitutionally unreliable. See State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129, 106 A. 2d 541 (1954) (noting that where legal errors    in their aggregate have rendered the trial unfair, our fundamental constitutional concepts dictate the granting of a new trial before an impartial jury). As we noted in Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 169, 586 A. 2d 85: The fact that capital cases are vigorously contested, protracted, and consistently implicate subtle and difficult legal issues virtually assures that in the course of each trial some errors and imperfections will be apparent. Trial judges, unlike appellate judges, make their rulings in the heat of trial, without the opportunity for deliberative review, and not even the most experienced and conscientious trial judges can be perfect. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one. Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 490, 97 L.Ed. 593, 605 (1953). That is true even in capital cases, where we `subject the record to intense scrutiny,' recognizing that a defendant's very life is at stake. Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 170, 586 A. 2d 85 (quoting Bey I, supra, 112 N.J. at 92-93, 548 A. 2d 846). We have carefully reviewed each of the errors identified in the course of this opinion. With the exception of defendant's conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b, we are satisfied, in the context of a trial that produced overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, that the combined effect of those errors was not clearly capable of affecting either defendant's convictions or his sentences.