Failure to give such a charge sua sponte is generally not
error where the omission of instruction on a lesser-
included offense is part of the defense strategy. See State
v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 162 (1991); State v. Pantusco, 330
N.J. Super. at 445. “In addition, at least where the lesser
offense has an element not included in the greater, see
N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8, the court cannot charge the lesser
offense without defendant’s consent.” Id. at 446.
Moreover, even where the trial court does err in not
giving a charge on a lesser offense, such error may be
harmless. See State v. Mendez, 252 N.J. Super. at 164;
State v. Vujosevic, 198 N.J. Super. 435, 444-46 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 101 N.J. 247 (1985); State v.
Mujahid, 252 N.J. Super. 100, 118 (App. Div. 1991),
certif. denied, 127 N.J. 561 (1992).
4. Intoxication (See also, DEFENSES, this Digest)
See generally, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8. Voluntary
intoxication is not a valid defense unless it negates an
element of the offense. State v. Johnson, 309 N.J. Super.
237, 266 (App. Div. 1998), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 387
(1998). The intoxication must be of an “extremely high
level.” Id. Jury instruction is required only when the facts
“clearly indicate” a rational basis for a conclusion that
defendant suffered a “prostration of faculties” to render
him incapable of forming the requisite mental state to
commit the crime. State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402, 418-
19 (1990); State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42, 58 (1986);
State v. Green, 318 N.J. Super. 361, 370 (App. Div.
1999), aff’d 163 N.J. 140 (2000); State v. Johnson, 309
N.J. Super. at 266. The determination of a particular
defendant’s intoxication is fact specific. State v. Bauman,
298 N.J. Super. 176, 194 (App. Div. 1997), certif. denied,
150 N.J. 25 (1997).
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a reckless
state of mind. The jury must be specifically advised that
intoxication is not a defense to manslaughter or
aggravated manslaughter in a murder trial. State v.
Warren, 104 N.J. 571 (1986); State v. Klich, 321 N.J.
Super. 388, 396-97 (App. Div. 1999).
For discussion of involuntary intoxication, See State v.
Sette, 259 N.J. Super. 156 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130
N.J. 597 (1992); State v. Bauman, 298 N.J. Super. at 194.
5. Further Deliberations
In State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980), the Court
disapproved the traditional Allen charge, See Allen v.
United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1986), adopting instead the
American Bar Association’s standards which provide that
when the court perceives the jury has been unable to
agree, the court may require the continuation of
deliberations. State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 302-315
(1987). The court may not, however, “require the jury
to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time.” Id. at- See also State v. Childs, 204 N.J. Super. 639 (App.
Div. 1985), where the trial court’s instruction to the jury
to continue their deliberations was held to be neutral and
in accord with Czachor.
6. Curative Instruction
The overwhelming case law in New Jersey is that the
prompt sustaining of an objection and an admonition to
disregard is sufficient to cure any error in a question,
answer, or argument before the jury. State v. Papasavvas,
163 N.J. 565 (2000); State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J.
515, 578, 580 (1999); State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 646-
649 (1984); State v. La Porte, 62 N.J. 312, 318 (1973);
State v. Hawkins, 316 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div.
1998), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 489 (1999); State v.
Ribalta, 277 N.J. Super, 277, 292 (App. Div. 1994),
certif. denied. 139 N.J. 442 (1995); State v. Darrian, 255
N.J. Super. 435, 455 (1992), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 13
(1992); State v. Perez, 218 N.J. Super, 478, 487 (App.
Div. 1987). A curative instruction will be deemed
insufficient only in extreme cases where there is
pronounced and persistent deliberate misconduct having
a probable cumulative effect upon the jury. State v. Frost,
158 N.J. 76, 86 (1999); State v. Witte, 13 N.J. 598, 612
(1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 951 (1954); State v. W.L.
292 N.J. Super. 100, 116 (App. Div. 1996).When weighing the efficacy of curative instructions,
courts may infer from the absence of objection that the
instructions were adequate in the context of trial. State v.
Brown, 325 N.J. Super. 447, 452 (App. Div. 1999),
certif. denied, 163 N.J. 76 (2000).Where no request for curative instruction has been
made, defendant must show that the failure to give such
an instruction sua sponte constitutes an error clearly
capable of producing an unjust result. See State v. Mays,
321 N.J. Super. 619, 632 (App. Div.), certif. denied 162
N.J. 132 (1999); State v. Nelson, 318 N.J. Super. 242,
254 (App. Div. 1999), certif. denied, 158 N.J. 687
(1999).When evidence is admitted pursuant to N.J.R.E.
404(b), the jury must be instructed as to the limited
purpose of the evidence and the restricted significance
they can attach to it. State v. Angoy, 329 N.J. Super. 79,