denied, 520 U.S. 1190, 117 S.Ct. 1476, 137 L.Ed.2d 688 (1997).] In so doing, we cautioned that our trial courts “will better serve the interest of justice if they do not attempt additional definitions of ‘reasonable doubt.’ Consequently we direct trial courts not to deviate from the definition contained in this opinion. The failure to adhere to the definition, over an objection, runs the risk of reversible error.” Ibid. The requirement that the State shoulder its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies not only to the guilt phase of a capital murder trial, but also to the State’s burden of proving that the aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors in the death penalty phase of a capital murder case. State v. Biegenwald (II), 106 N.J. 13, 62, 524 A.2d 130 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s instructions to the jury
holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in order to sustain death sentence as a matter of fundamental fairness the jury must find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and this balance must be found beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the penaltyphase juryneed not find that aggravating factors sufficiently outweighed mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt holding that sixth amendment requires that a jury not a judge find the existence of any aggravating circumstance and that they be found beyond a reasonable doubt holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors