State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Edward Robinson, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court was not required to tailor its jury instruction on identification to the specific facts of the case. The Court noted that the existing model charge satisfies the constitutional requirement and that any error was not plain error. Justice Stein concurred, urging courts to consider balanced summaries, while Justice O'Hern dissented, arguing that the instruction should have been fact‑specific and balanced.