State v. Brown, 80 N.J. 587, 592 (1979). Note, however,
that the State’s right to the benefit of reasonable inference
cannot be used to reduce the State’s burden of
establishing the essential elements of the offense charged
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 592.
A determination of the sufficiency of evidence of
constructive possession is fact sensitive and requires an
examination of the totality of the circumstances. State v.
Hurdle, 311 N.J. Super. 89, 96-97 (App. Div. 1998) (and
cases cited therein).
New Jersey courts reject the view that when the
State’s evidence is circumstantial, all of the circumstances
not only must concur to indicate a defendant’s guilt but
also must be inconsistent with any other rational
hypothesis consistent with innocence. State v. Mayberry,
52 N.J. 413, 436-37 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1043
(1969).
Considerations of “fundamental fairness” prohibit a
retrial on a speeding charge when it merely afforded the
State an opportunity to produce evidence of the
applicable speed limit that the State had failed to produce
originally. State v. Tropea, 78 N.J. 309, 315-316 (1978).
Cf. State v. Lynch, 79 N.J. 327, 343 (1979) (judicial error
as to sufficiency of evidence needed to withstand motion
for judgment of acquittal following opening statements
nevertheless bars retrial when acquittal is entered). A
reversal by an appellate court based on insufficient
evidence requires an acquittal. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S.
31, 102 S.Ct. 2211 (1982); Hudson v. Louisiana, 450
U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970 (1981); State v. Leonard, 234 N.J.
Super. 183, 191 (App. Div. 1989).
G. Instructions to the Jury (See also, PRESUMPTIONS, this Digest)
1. Requests to Charge
R. 1:8-7 controls requests to charge the jury. R. 1:8-
7(a) requires requests to charge, except as to issues not
then anticipated, to be submitted to the court at or before
the commencement of the trial. The court must rule on
these requests before closing arguments.
R. 1:8-7(b) mandates a charge conference on the
record prior to closing arguments in all criminal cases.
“At the conference the court shall advise counsel of the
offenses, defenses, and other legal issues to be charged and
shall rule on requests made by counsel.” R. 1:8-7(b).
When the subject matter of a request for instruction
involves essential and fundamental issues and
substantially material points, requests for instructions
should be honored. If, however, the request does not fall
within those two categories, the court may exercise broad
discretion in deciding whether to grant a request. State
v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 290 (1981) (a specific instruction
regarding identification is required when that issue is
essential to the case); see also State v. Pierce, 330 N.J. Super.
479 (App. Div. 2000) (charge on identification plain
error when it failed to satisfy minimum requirements of
State v. Green). No party is entitled to have the jury
charged in his or her own words. If the subject matter is
adequately covered in the charge as a whole, no
prejudicial error results. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396,
411 (1971).A defendant is not entitled to an instruction which
contains an erroneous or improper legal statement. State
v. Green, 86 N.J. at 290; State v. Gelb, 212 N.J. Super.
582, 590 (App. Div. 1986), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 633
(1987).2. Content - In General
Appropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential
for a fair trial. State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 40 (2000);
State v. Burgess, 154 N.J. 181, 185 (1998); State v. Green,
86 N.J. at 287. Each element of the offense must be
properly defined for the jury. State v. Wallace, 158 N.J.
552, 558 (1999). Failure to charge an element of an
offense is presumed to be prejudicial error, even in the
absence of a request. State v. Burgess, 154 N.J. at 186;
State v. Rhett, 127 N.J. 3, 7 (1992); State v. Vick, 117 N.J.
288 (1989). The need for special cautionary
instructions relating to the jury’s consideration of
particular kinds of evidence depends on the nature of the
evidence presented at trial. State v. Baldwin, 296 N.J.
Super. 391, 396 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 143
(1997). See, e.g., State v. Fertig, 143 N.J. 115 (1996)
(hypnotically refreshed testimony); State v. Gross, 121
N.J. (1990) (prior inconsistent statements); State v.
Sinclair, 57 N.J. 56 (1970) (prior criminal convictions);
State v. Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112 (1999) (cross-racial
identifications); State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281 (1981)
(identifications); State v. Hampton, 61 N.J. 250 (1972)
(confessions); State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400 (1957) (oral
statements); State v. Begyn, 34 N.J. 35 (1961)
(accomplice testimony).Model jury instructions, while helpful, may not
always provide appropriate jury instructions for all cases.
State v. Hackett, 323 N.J. Super. 460, 480 (App. Div.