cdTOCtest

STIPULATIONSSTIPULATIONSSTIPULATIONSSTIPULATIONSSTIPULATIONS

(See also, POLYGRAPHS, this Digest)

I. TRIAL LEVEL

A. Generally

A stipulation is an admission which cannot be
disregarded or set aside at will. Waldorf v. Borough of
Kenilworth, 878 F. Supp. 686, 690 (D.N.J. 1995), aff’d,
142 F.2d 601 (3d Cir. 1998). The State and the
defendant may stipulate to the entire factual picture.
State v. Leach, 143 N.J. Super. 289, 291 (Law Div. 1976).
See also U.S. v. Kikumura, 947 F.2d 72, 75-76 (3d Cir.
1991) (defendant’s stipulation that he transported
explosives with knowledge and intent that they be used
to damage or destroy property, which prosecution made
clear would not prevent Government from seeking to
prove intent to cause death, injury or intimidation at
sentencing, waived any objection to Government’s
introduction of evidence of his intent to kill at
sentencing); State v. Thomas, 132 N.J. 247, 257 (1993)
(stipulation ordinarily obviates the need for authenticat-
ing a document).

However, to be given effect, the terms of a stipulation
must be “definite and certain” and “assented to by the
parties or those representing them.” Kurak v. A.P. Green
Refractories Co., 298 N.J. Super. 304, 325 (App. Div.
1997), certif. denied, 152 N.J. 10 (1997). As such,
stipulations should be construed with reference to their
subject matter and in light of the surrounding
circumstances. Id; see also Washington Hosp. v. White, 889
F.2d 1294, 1302-03 (3d Cir. 1989); Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 71 F. Supp.2d 394,
400-02 (D.N.J. 1999).

A trial of a criminal case based upon stipulated facts
to which parties can agree may be a useful mechanism in
appropriate cases to narrow the areas of conflict to be
resolved by court. State in the Interest of T.M,. N.J.
(2001). However, such a process must be reconciled with
Rule 3:9-2 and procedural due process considerations.
Id. Thus, trials on stipulated facts are limited to
situations where there is an initial demonstration on the
record that the defendant is engaging in the stipulated-
facts trial voluntarily and knowingly. Id.

Nonetheless, the State may reject a defendant’s offer
to stipulate to essentially all of the facts. The prosecution
is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice
and a criminal defendant may not stipulate his or her way

out of the full evidentiary force of a case. Old Chief v.

United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d

574 (1997); State v. Alvarez, 318 N.J. Super. 137, 152-

53 (App. Div. 1999). For instance, in State v. Laws, 50

N.J. 159, 183-184 (1967), the defendant was prepared

to stipulate to the facts of the robbery and the killing,

except for the assailants’ identity. The State correctly

refused to so stipulate because “the State should have the

right to make a full showing before the jury whenever it

considers such course necessary for the proper

presentation of its case.” Id. Thus, even if a defendant

stipulates to certain facts, the State may still introduce

evidence to prove every element of the offense. State v.

Peltack, 172 N.J. Super. 287, 293 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 84 N.J. 474 (1980).

As to stipulations to the number of jurors on a jury,

see R. 1:8-2; State v. Morales, 116 N.J. Super. at 543;

E.E.O.C. v. State of Del. Dept. of Health and Social Serv.,

865 F.2d 1408, 1420 (3d Cir. 1989).

II. APPELLATE REVIEW

A. Generally

Litigants will generally be held to their stipulations

and the consequences thereof both during trial and upon

appellate review. Matter of Robinovitz, 102 N.J. 57, 61

(1986); Negrotti v. Negrotti, 98 N.J. 428, 432 (1985);

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Riefolo Constr. Co., 81 N.J. 514,

523 (1980); Ambassador Insur. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J.

477, 481-42 (1978); State v. Andrial, 203 N.J. Super. 1,

5-7 (App. Div. 1985); State v. Morales, 116 N.J. Super. at

542-43. Valid stipulations entered into freely and fairly

and approved by the court should not be lightly set aside.

Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 616 (3d Cir. 1998). A

court’s decision to bind a party to a stipulation is

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id.

Despite the limitations placed upon withdrawing

stipulations, they are not absolute and courts may grant

parties relief from them to prevent a manifest injustice.

Id. at 617-18. Neither the parties nor the court is bound

by stipulation as to a matter of law which is contrary to

the controlling law on the subject. State v. Bodtmann,

239 N.J. Super. 33, 46-47 (App. Div. 1990); State v.

Elysee, 159 N.J. Super. 380, 384 (App. Div. 1978). An

appellate court is not bound by an erroneous stipulation

or concession concerning the application of a statute.

Schere v. Freehold Tp., 150 N.J. Super. 404, 408 (App.

Div. 1977).