self-defense claim in New Jersey

2025If such evidence is present, "then the jury must A-1690-22 22 be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts; [and] acquittal is required if there remains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted in self-defense." Ibid.; see also State v. Gentry, 439 N.J.

2025Super. 57, 63 (App. Div. 2015) (holding that a self-defense instruction is required, even when not requested, where the evidence indicates a rational basis for instructing it). "[B]ecause self-defense must be charged if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, would support that justification, we focus on 'the evidence that provides a rational basis for a self-defense charge.'" Gentry, 439 N.J.

2020A-0313-18T1 29 "[U]nder the Criminal Code 'the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.'" Fowler, 239 N.J. at 185 (emphasis omitted) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(a)).7 Viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, if such evidence is present, "then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with

2020Rather, if any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State's or the defendant's case, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts; acquittal is required if there remains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted in self-defense. [State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 200 (1984).] Here, defendant's intent in striking Milon with the hammer as well as the number and severity of the blows were disputed.

2025We have stated that "if any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is admitted in either the State's or the defendant's case, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts." State v. Burks, 208 N.J.

2024Although "the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts," "[a]ssuming there is evidence that a defendant acted in self-defense, the jury decides whether [defendant's] belief was honest and reasonable" and "the jury need not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's belief was honest and reasonable." State v. Burks, 208 N.J.

2015Rather, if any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State’s or the defendant’s ease, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts; acquittal is required if there remains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted in self-defense. [ Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 200 , 478 A.2d 364 .] At trial, therefore, “[o]nee the issue of self-defense has been raised, the burden to disprove the issue shifts to the State.” Perry, supra, 124 N.J. at 194 , 590 A.2d 624 .

2015Rather, if any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State’s or the defendant’s ease, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts; acquittal is required if there remains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted in self-defense. [ Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 200 , 478 A.2d 364 .] At trial, therefore, “[o]nee the issue of self-defense has been raised, the burden to disprove the issue shifts to the State.” Perry, supra, 124 N.J. at 194 , 590 A.2d 624 .

1993A jury instruction on self-defense is necessary in the following circumstances: [I]f any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State's case or the defendant's case, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts.... [ Id. at 200 , 478 A. 2d 364 (emphasis added).] See also State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63, 72 , 174 A. 2d 881 (1961); Vigilante, supra, 257 N.J.

1993A jury instruction on self-defense is necessary in the following circumstances: [I]f any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State's case or the defendant's case, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts.... [ Id. at 200 , 478 A. 2d 364 (emphasis added).] See also State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63, 72 , 174 A. 2d 881 (1961); Vigilante, supra, 257 N.J.

2025Super. at 63 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 170 (2008)).

2024See Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 310-12, 323-24 (holding that omitting a self-defense instruction for one weapons offense required reversal because it was impossible to tell whether the conviction was a product of a misapprehension of the law); State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 170-73, 175 (2008) (finding plain error where the court explicitly told the jury that self-defense applied only to murder, not manslaughter); State v. Gentry, 439 N.J.

2022See State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 390 (2012) (quoting State v. O'Carroll, 385 N.J.

2019State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 390-91 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 161 (1991)).

2022See State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 390 (2012) (quoting State v. O'Carroll, 385 N.J.

2019Thus, "if 'any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is admitted in either the State's or the defendant's case, then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts.'" State v. O'Carroll, 385 N.J.

2011Id. at 153, 590 A. 2d 624 ; see also State v. Vasquez, 265 N.J.Super. 528, 550 , 628 A. 2d 346 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 480 , 634 A. 2d 527 (1993).

2011Id. at 153, 590 A.2d 624 ; see also State v. Vasquez, 265 N.J.Super. 528, 550 , 628 A.2d 346 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 480 , 634 A.2d 527 (1993).

2011Id. at 153, 590 A. 2d 624 ; see also State v. Vasquez, 265 N.J.Super. 528, 550 , 628 A. 2d 346 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 480 , 634 A. 2d 527 (1993).

2011Id. at 153, 590 A. 2d 624 ; see also State v. Vasquez, 265 N.J.Super. 528, 550 , 628 A. 2d 346 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 480 , 634 A. 2d 527 (1993).

2025Super. 100 , 109 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. 370, 385 (1990)).

2017Id. at 385-87 , 571 A.2d 1286 .

2015Second, our Court has already established that a defendant may waive an affirmative defense so long as that waiver is “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” See State v. Handy, 215 N.J. 334, 362 , 73 A.3d 421 (2013) (dealing specifically with insanity defense).

2015Second, our Court has already established that a defendant may waive an affirmative defense so long as that waiver is “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” See State v. Handy, 215 N.J. 334, 362 , 73 A.3d 421 (2013) (dealing specifically with insanity defense).

2024See generally State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19-20 (2009) (explaining "[a]ppellate review is not limitless" and reviewing courts will generally not consider issues, even of constitutional magnitude, for the first time on appeal unless the issues go to the court's jurisdiction or concern matters of great public interest).

2024See Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 310-12, 323-24 (holding that omitting a self-defense instruction for one weapons offense required reversal because it was impossible to tell whether the conviction was a product of a misapprehension of the law); State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 170-73, 175 (2008) (finding plain error where the court explicitly told the jury that self-defense applied only to murder, not manslaughter); State v. Gentry, 439 N.J.

2024Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 307, 313 .

2022In State v. Blanks, the defendant "argue[d] that a passion/provocation manslaughter charge should automatically be considered whenever a defendant claims self-defense and there is a possibility that the jury may find that the defendant overreacted to the victim's conduct." 313 N.J.

2020The invited error doctrine applies when the trial court's alleged error was "induced, encouraged, acquiesced in or consented to by defense counsel." State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339, 345 (1987) (quoting State v. Harper, 128 N.J.

2020"Appropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential for a fair trial." State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287 (1981).

2020The invited error doctrine applies when the trial court's alleged error was "induced, encouraged, acquiesced in or consented to by defense counsel." State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339, 345 (1987) (quoting State v. Harper, 128 N.J.

2019See State v. Belliard, 415 N.J.

2019The court instructed the jury that, to reach a guilty verdict for murder, the jury must determine that Hearns caused the victim’s death and did so “purposely or knowingly.” The court noted that defendant’s act must have caused Johnson’s death in a way that was not “too remote, too accidental in its occurrence or too dependent on another’s volitional act” to have a “just bearing on the defendant’s liability.” Both defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on self-defense and lesser-included offenses. 453 N.J.

2019Id. at 507 .