State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Robert A. Figueroa, Defendant-Respondent

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal and remand, holding that the trial court's supplemental jury charge was coercive because it omitted required cautionary language and suggested weekend deliberations, thereby necessitating a new trial. The Court also held that the trial court did not err in declining to inquire whether further deliberations would likely produce a verdict. Justice Rivera‑Soto dissented, arguing that the charge should be read as a whole and was not coercive.