Opinion ID: 1959985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Cumulativeness of Errors

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court's errors in their aggregate warrant reversal of his death sentence. 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 have previously stated, we are convinced that the trial court's failure to exclude juror Dawson for cause was rendered harmless by the defense's peremptory challenge of Dawson. Furthermore, the exhaustion of defendant's peremptory challenges was harmless because no one who ultimately sat on the jury was partial. In addition, we find that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on defendant's statement in allocution in no way prejudiced defendant. We are also convinced that those errors in their aggregate did not contribute to an unjust result or deprive defendant of a fair trial. `A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.' Martini, supra, 131 N.J. at 321, 619 A. 2d 1208 (quoting Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 490, 97 L.Ed. 593, 605 (1953)).