to give a requested Ha/mpton/Kociolek charge concerning a defendant’s oral statements should not justify the time or expense of a retrial. [Ibid.] The Appellate Division has also held that the failure of a trial court to provide a Hampton charge, notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to request such a charge, constitutes plain error. For example, in State v. Nutter, 258 N.J.Super. 41, 609 A.2d 65 (App.Div.1992), the court held that it was error not to instruct a jury on its duty to determine if the defendant’s statement made to the police was credible. Id. at 60, 609 A.2d 65. Because the court had already decided a retrial was necessary on other grounds, it provided no further comment on the Hampton issue. See also State v. Jones, 287 N.J.Super. 478, 484, 671 A.2d 586 (App.Div. 1996) (<HOLDING>). The Appellate Division, however, has also
holding that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on a principals theory because there was no evidence that the appellant acted in concert with anyone in committing the charged offenses holding that trial court committed reversible error in not instructing jury to determine credibility of incriminating statements attributed to defendant by state trooper holding that there is no error in instructing the jury on alternative theories if there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed firstdegree murder holding that defendants conviction    must be vacated where defendant argued that trial court committed plain error in instructing jury on nonexistent crime of attempted second degree murder holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial