context: This Court has often invalidated procedural practices which infringe on a defendant's right to be treated in a manner that comports with principles of fundamental fairness, even though no constitutional violation has occurred.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 106 N.J. 53, 53
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that failure to charge that jury must find aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violates fundamental fairness and requires reversal of death sentence
citation_a.sentence: See also State v. Biegenwald, supra, 106 N.J. at 53 (holding that failure to charge that jury must find aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violates fundamental fairness and requires reversal of death sentence).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 78 N.J. 309, 313
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to hold that double jeopardy bars retrial of speeding offense but finding that retrial was barred by considerations of fundamental fairness
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., State v. Czachor, supra, 82 N.J. at 402; State v. Tropea, 78 N.J. 309, 313 (1978) (declining to hold that double jeopardy bars retrial of speeding offense but finding that retrial was barred by considerations of fundamental fairness); State v. Gregory, 66 N.J. 510, 519 (1975) (prohibiting multiple prosecution for acts arising out of same arrest under court’s supervisory power to ensure fairness in the administration of justice, although rejecting constitutional attack); State v. De Bonis, 58 N.J. 182 (1971) (as a matter of policy, not due process, defendant who appeals from conviction entered in municipal court and receives trial de novo in county court may not receive harsher sentence on retrial). We find such considerations of fairness clearly no less compelling in a capital case.