State v. Yough, 208 N.J. 385

Defendant Stanford Yough was convicted in Passaic County for second-degree robbery and sentenced as a persistent offender to 15 years under No Early Release Act.
The primary trial evidence was the victim Cesar Alva's identification of Yough, following a robbery at a Paterson restaurant in October 2005.
Alva later identified Yough in a photo lineup and provided a police statement two years earlier describing prior sightings before the robbery.
During cross-examination, defense highlighted a discrepancy between Alva's in-court testimony and his prior statement about how many times he had seen Yough, prompting a Rule 104 hearing out of the jury.
At trial, the court barred questioning about post-robbery sightings and instructed Alva not to mention post-robbery encounters; the defense proceeded without a mistrial.
The Appellate Division granted a new trial on grounds of prejudicial post-robbery testimony; the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction, remanding for other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mistrial was warranted due to post-robbery sightings	You gh claims post-robbery evidence tainted trial	Mistrial necessary to prevent injustice from bad-acts	No mistrial; error not clearly capable of unjust result
Whether Alva's post-robbery encounters constitute 404(b) evidence	Evidence allowed for motive/prior acts	Evidence inadmissible as improper propensity proof	Not clearly improper; admissibility not established as reversible error
Whether trial court adequately managed surprises and instructions to the jury	Trial court should have allowed corrective measures	Defense strategically accepted conditions to avoid prejudice	Trial court did not abuse discretion; juror fairness maintained
Whether the State and appellate panel properly treated the cross-examination and closing argument	Appellate panel erred in granting new trial for prejudicial cross-exam	Defense lacked timely objection; trial management acceptable	Reversed Appellate Division; no new trial required

State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640 (1984) (trial evidence may be inadmissible but not necessarily fatal)
State v. Witte, 13 N.J. 598 (1953) (trial judge's discretion on objections and curative instructions)
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (mistrial extraordinary remedy to prevent obvious failure of justice)
State v. LaBrutto, 114 N.J. 187 (1989) (abuse of discretion in mistrial denial requires actual harm)
State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583 (2002) (unjust result standard for improper evidence)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (defense strategy and curative instructions affect outcomes)
State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114 (2007) (curative measures and admissibility of prior statements under 613)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) (trial court makes credibility determinations from observing witnesses)