that: We have consistently held that all forms of homicide rationally supported by the evidence, whether they be lesser-included or alternative offenses, should be placed before the jury. To truncate the definitions of the murder statute and thus deny a jury the mechanism to decide which of the forms of murder has been proven is unacceptable. [Id. at 530-31, 601 A.2d 175.] That principle has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court. See Mejia, supra, 141 N.J. at 484, 662 A.2d 308 (noting that a capital “jury must be given every opportunity to convict of the charge not carrying the death penalty” and disapproving of a sequential charge) (quoting John M. Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code, Annotated, comment 13 to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(e) (1994)); Dixon, supra, 125 N.J. at 256, 593 A.2d 266 (<HOLDING>). The Court today finds that the error did not
holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number holding that the felonymurder charge must be submitted to the jury in a capital case where the evidence clearly indicates the appropriateness of the charge holding that whether a jury charge comments on weight of evidence is determined by looking at the jury charge as a whole not isolated statements holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions holding that statutory references in charge did not cure the omission of essential elements in the challenged counts of the charge