State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. Shariff Ingram, Defendant-Respondent and…

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that (1) when an accomplice is charged and lesser‑included offenses are also charged, the jury must be instructed on both the lesser offenses and accomplice liability, but a separate instruction on differing mental states is not required to avoid reversible error; (2) the prosecutor’s summation of the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder was accurate and did not constitute error; and (3) it was error to instruct the jury that the defendant’s voluntary absence from trial alone could be considered evidence of consciousness of guilt, requiring a new trial.