STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH S. MACCHIA (16-12-0814, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-5473-17
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    JOSEPH S. MACCHIA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Argued November 16, 2020 – Decided October 4, 2021
    Before Judges Currier, Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Union County, Indictment No. 16-12-0814.
    John Vincent Saykanic argued the cause for appellant.
    Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney
    General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
    for respondent (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union
    County Prosecutor, attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of
    counsel and on the brief).
    The opinion of the court was delivered by
    GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.
    Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree reckless
    manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1), and sentenced to a six-year term of
    imprisonment, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The
    charge stemmed from the fatal shooting of Michael Gaffney outside a bar.
    Defendant, then an off-duty police officer, and the victim engaged in fist fights
    during the night, which ended when defendant fired his service weapon, hitting
    the victim three times. At trial, the State presented a surveillance video of the
    encounter as well as the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses. Defendant claimed
    he shot the victim in self-defense because the victim was reaching for
    defendant's gun.
    On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
    POINT I
    THE TRIAL COURT'S ADMITTEDLY ERRONEOUS
    INSTRUCTION AS TO WHAT THE JURY WAS
    REQUIRED TO FIND IN ORDER TO DISALLOW
    SELF-DEFENSE (THE COURT'S INCORRECTLY
    REQUIRING THAT DEFENDANT "DID NOT
    PROVOKE THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE
    PURPOSE TO KILL" AS OPPOSED TO THE
    CORRECT "DID NOT PROVOKE THE USE OF
    FORCE AGAINST HIMSELF IN THE ENCOUNTER
    WITH THE PURPOSE TO KILL") DEPRIVED
    DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A
    FAIR TRIAL (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV;
    N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9).
    A-5473-17
    2
    POINT II
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS INSTRUCTION
    BY NOT SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTING THE
    JURY THAT IT NEEDED TO UNANIMOUSLY
    AGREE ON THE FACTORS DISPROVED BY THE
    STATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (IN
    SPITE OF THE DEFENSE REQUEST AND
    OBVIOUS JURY CONFUSION), AND FAILED TO
    PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A SPECIAL
    INTERROGATORY REGARDING THE THEORY
    FORMING THE BASIS FOR ITS CONVICTION
    RESULTING IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
    PATCHWORK/FRAGMENTED OR LESS THAN
    UNANIMOUS VERDICT (U.S. CONST. [AMENDS.]
    V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9);
    AND R[ULE] 1:8-9.
    POINT III
    THE ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION AS TO
    THE TIMING WITH REGARDS TO THE DUTY TO
    RETREAT "AFTER THE SECOND ALTERCATION"
    WHEN, IN REALITY, IT WAS AT THE MOMENT
    OF THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, DEPRIVED
    DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A
    FAIR TRIAL (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV;
    N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9).
    POINT IV
    THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT OF HIS
    SIXTH      AMENDMENT           RIGHT         OF
    CONFRONTATION TO FULLY CROSS-EXAMINE
    A KEY STATE'S WITNESS[] (U.S. CONST.
    AMEND. VI; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 10).
    A-5473-17
    3
    POINT V
    THE IMPROPER STATE'S CLOSING STATEMENT
    (INCLUDING AN IMPROPERLY UTILIZED
    POWER POINT PRESENTATION MIS[S]TATING
    THE LAW AS TO DUTY TO RETREAT) DEPRIVED
    DEFENDANT OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
    TO A FAIR TRIAL AND FOURTEENTH
    AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND STATE
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (U.S.
    CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947)
    ART. I, PARAS. 1, 10).
    POINT VI
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING
    MANY       HIGHLY     PREJUDICIAL  HEARSAY
    STATEMENTS OF GAFFNEY THROUGH THE
    TRIAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT LIMA AS
    PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS UNDER [N.J.R.E.]
    803(C)(3) AND UNDER [N.J.R.E.] 803(C)(2); THE
    GAFFNEY/LIMA STATEMENTS SHOULD ALSO
    HAVE BEEN RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER
    [N.J.R.E.] 403; DEFENDANT'S CONFRONTATION
    AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
    (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST.
    (1947) ART. I, PARA. 10).
    POINT VII
    THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR
    (R. 2:10-2) IN FAILING TO ADDRESS TO THE
    JURY (EITHER WITH A LIMITING INSTRUCTION
    DURING THE TESTIMONY OF LIMA OR DURING
    FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS) THE LIMITED
    PURPOSE OF THE "PRESENT SENSE/STATE-OF-
    MIND" HEARSAY EVIDENCE (NOT RAISED
    BELOW).
    A-5473-17
    4
    POINT VIII
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AS
    THE STATE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT'S
    GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT; THE
    DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS CONTRARY TO
    THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND [THE]
    NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION (1947) ART.
    I, PARAS. 1, 10.
    POINT IX
    THE NUMEROUS LEGAL ERRORS COMMITTED
    BY THE COURT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS
    FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
    DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND
    NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
    FAIR TRIAL; (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI AND XIV;
    N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PAR. 10) (NOT RAISED
    BELOW).
    POINT X
    AS THE SENTENCING JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
    MITIGATING      FACTORS   SUBSTANTIALLY
    OUTWEIGHED THE ONE AGGRAVATING
    FACTOR, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE
    BEEN SENTENCED TO A SENTENCE ONE
    DEGREE LOWER PURSUANT TO [N.J.S.A.] 2C:44-
    1[(F)](2) AND SENTENCED TO THE MINIMUM
    TERM PERMISSIBLE.
    We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable
    legal principles. We reject each of the points raised and affirm.
    A-5473-17
    5
    I.
    Following the adjudication of various pre-trial motions, an eleven-day
    jury trial was conducted on various dates in May and June 2018, during which
    the State produced seventeen witnesses. In addition to the medical examiner
    and various law enforcement witnesses, the bar owner, the bartender, and seven
    bar patrons testified for the State, including defendant's wife.     Defendant
    testified on his own behalf. He did not present any additional witnesses. We
    glean these facts from the trial record.
    Defendant was an eleven-year veteran police officer with the Newark
    Police Department. Upon completion of his shift on May 12, 2016, defendant
    returned to his home, changed into his civilian clothes, and secured his service
    weapon on his waist in an off-duty holster, covering it with "an oversized tee
    shirt." Thereafter, defendant and his wife, Katherine Macchia, went to Paddy's
    Place, a bar located in Union to celebrate Katherine's newly discovered
    pregnancy.1 They arrived at about 11:00 p.m., socialized and listened to music.
    Several of the patrons, including defendant and his wife, were regular customers
    1
    The parties stipulated that "Newark Police Department rules and regulations
    give off-duty police officers the option of being armed with their service
    weapons when they engage in activity that includes the consumption of alcoholic
    beverages."
    A-5473-17
    6
    who knew each other. Over the course of about two hours, defendant consumed
    "[six] Miller Lite beers and [two] shots . . . of Jack Daniels" while his wife drank
    "[s]eltzer water."
    Michael Gaffney, with whom defendant was acquainted, arrived at
    Paddy's Place around 10:30 p.m. to meet his friend, Robert Lima, to discuss a
    potential construction job. Gaffney and Lima both worked in the construction
    industry and had known each other for about twenty years. Lima arrived at the
    bar between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. and consumed "[a]bout two [drinks]."
    Shortly after 1:00 a.m. the following morning, Lima was in the process of
    leaving when "he saw Gaffney had a cigarette in his mouth." While outside,
    Lima and Gaffney playfully jostled each other over the cigarette Gaffney was
    smoking, prompting Gaffney to "joking[ly]" hit Lima's shoulder. According to
    Gregory Netschert, another bar patron and friend of Gaffney and Lima, Gaffney
    was known among his friends for "play fight[ing]" and had "punched [Netschert]
    in the chest" as he was leaving the bar.
    Around that time, defendant was also outside smoking a cigarette. When
    defendant saw Gaffney hit Lima, he asked Gaffney if he "liked to throw hands"
    and Gaffney responded "sometimes." Gaffney and defendant then began "slap
    boxing" with each other, which Lima described as "the two . . . squar[ing] with
    A-5473-17
    7
    each other and hit[ting] each other" without "try[ing] to be malicious." By all
    accounts, Gaffney was significantly taller and heavier than defendant.2 At one
    point, Gaffney hit defendant and defendant "went down." Gaffney then tackled
    defendant, and the two wrestled on the ground. Lima tried unsuccessfully to
    separate them. At some point, defendant grabbed Gaffney by the shirt and pulled
    the shirt off of him. By that time, other patrons, and the bartender, Nicolette
    Bedlivy, had exited the bar and tried to convince defendant and Gaffney to stop
    fighting. Eventually, they were separated, and Gaffney walked back inside the
    bar while defendant remained outside with his wife, who was pleading with him
    to leave. However, defendant was visibly agitated. One bar patron, Anthony
    DiMondi, approached defendant and tried to get him to calm down, telling him
    he didn't "want to ruin [his] career." Defendant did not respond.
    Meanwhile, Gaffney was inside the bar with his friend and former Paddy's
    Place bartender, Catherine Vinsko.       Vinsko told Gaffney to stop fighting
    because defendant would "sue him if he kept it up." Gaffney finally agreed and
    walked back to the front door.       Standing in the doorway, Gaffney said to
    defendant: "Bro, it's over." "I don't want to fight." "Just let's end it." Witnesses
    2
    According to defendant, Gaffney was "six[-foot] three, six[-foot] four, 260,
    270 pounds" and he was "five[-foot] seven, 195 pounds."
    A-5473-17
    8
    testified that at that juncture, Gaffney and defendant "shook hands" and "chest
    bumped" each other to signify a reconciliation. Gaffney then walked back inside
    the bar. On the other hand, defendant stayed outside, saying he was "not done."
    Although his wife tried to get him to leave, defendant refused.          Instead,
    defendant stood by the doorway of the bar, looking and pointing at Gaffney "to
    entice him to come back out." In response, Gaffney yelled "stop eyeballing me."
    Eventually, Gaffney came to the door, and he and defendant began to fight
    again. Defendant fell to the ground, and Gaffney got on top of him, punching
    him repeatedly. Realizing the fight was not going to stop, Lima went over to
    Gaffney and grabbed him. Vinsko also tried to grab Gaffney. As they pulled
    him off of defendant, defendant shot Gaffney, striking Gaffney in the chest,
    shoulder, and abdomen. Gaffney fell on top of defendant and died shortly
    thereafter. Vinsko went back inside the bar and "hit the panic button . . . under
    the register," prompting the Union Police Department to respond.
    When Union police officers responded to the scene, defendant said he was
    "a Newark police officer and [Gaffney] was going for [his] gun." The officers
    promptly disarmed and arrested defendant.        The officers then approached
    Gaffney, who was "non-responsive." When the medical examiner arrived at the
    scene, he took control of Gaffney's body.
    A-5473-17
    9
    After his arrest, defendant was placed in the back of Officer Christopher
    Connors's patrol vehicle. Because defendant would not stop talking, Connors
    read defendant his Miranda3 rights. Defendant's statements were recorded on
    the vehicle's dashboard camera and played for the jury during the trial. In the
    recording, defendant said he "almost passed out" and Gaffney "fucked [him]
    up." Defendant stated: "It happened, then it stopped and then he came out
    again." Defendant repeated that he was a Newark police officer, and that
    Gaffney was going for his gun.
    Officer Rahmel Spann and his partner were responsible for transporting
    defendant to the hospital to treat his injuries. While they were in the waiting
    room, defendant asked about Gaffney's condition and "showed remorse." He
    also asked Spann what he would do if he were "in that situation." Defendant
    stated Gaffney "knew [he] was a cop," and reiterated that he thought Gaffney
    was "going for [his] gun." Further, defendant told Spann "[he] defecated on
    himself" and "felt like he was going to black out." Defendant was discharged
    from the hospital with a "head injury, broken nose . . . abrasions to . . . both
    knees," and "a sprained left wrist."
    3
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
     (1966).
    A-5473-17
    10
    When Bedlivy spoke to officers at the scene, her statements were recorded
    on the dashboard camera and played for the jury during the trial. In the recording
    and during her trial testimony, Bedlivy said Gaffney "tried to grab [defendant's]
    gun." However, at trial, she acknowledged she did not see Gaffney reach for
    defendant's gun, and the reason she initially said she did was because defendant's
    wife "told [her] that's what" occurred. Defendant's wife confirmed during her
    trial testimony that "it was [her] perception" that Gaffney reached for her
    husband's gun. Lima, on the other hand, testified at trial that he did not see
    Gaffney reach for defendant's gun.
    One week after the incident, defendant was interviewed at the Union
    County Prosecutor's Office. He was accompanied by his attorney and was
    administered his Miranda rights. The recorded interview was played for the jury
    at trial.   In his statement, defendant explained the altercation began when
    Gaffney approached him while he was outside smoking a cigarette and asked
    him if he "wanted to fight." 4 Given the size difference, defendant responded
    "no." Nevertheless, Gaffney punched him "in the chest" and tackled him to the
    ground. While they were wrestling on the ground, "the fight was broken up,"
    4
    Defendant suggested Gaffney's solicitation to fight may have been prompted
    by defendant intervening earlier in Gaffney's attempt to fight another bar patron
    who was much smaller and older than Gaffney.
    A-5473-17
    11
    and the two "shook hands." Thereafter, when defendant stood outside the bar
    door to get "somebody's attention" to "get [his] jacket" and "settle [his] tab,"
    Gaffney asked defendant if he was "eyeballing" him and started fighting again
    despite defendant's response that he was not "eyeballing" him. During the
    second fight, while Gaffney was "straddling [him]," and "pummeling [him] on
    the ground . . . both [Gaffney's] hands . . . went to [his] duty weapon." Defendant
    said he was "in fear of [his] life and [his] wife's life so [he] had no choice but to
    fire to stop the threat." According to defendant, he "fired three . . . shots
    consecutively." 5
    Surveillance video was recovered from Paddy's Place by Union County
    Prosecutor's Office Detective Darius Tokarz. The video was played for the jury
    and referred to by the witnesses multiple times during the trial.
    Dr. Junaid Shaikh, the medical examiner who performed Gaffney's
    autopsy, testified Gaffney "sustained three gunshot wounds, one to the left side
    of the chest, one to the left upper shoulder, and one to the right upper aspect of
    the abdomen." The gunshot wound to the chest was the fatal wound. Based on
    the stippling of gun powder residue observed around each bullet entry wound,
    5
    During the trial, defendant's grand jury testimony was read to the jury. The
    grand jury testimony was largely consistent with his recorded statement.
    A-5473-17
    12
    Shaikh believed the gun was fired approximately seven to eight inches from the
    skin. Additionally, Shaikh testified Gaffney had injuries to his face, including
    bruising just above his left eyebrow and lip, superficial injuries to his nose, a
    laceration to his upper lip, and swelling under his left eye. Gaffney also had
    injuries to his right knee and right front thigh. According to Shaikh, those
    injuries were consistent with a "scuffle or physical altercation."6
    At trial, defendant testified on his own behalf consistent with his recorded
    statement. He insisted he had done nothing to entice or encourage Gaffney to
    fight him. Although Gaffney punched him and broke his nose, causing him to
    bleed "profusely," defendant said he did nothing to fight back.          Instead,
    defendant testified he tried to "hug[] him like a boxer would" to try to get him
    to "stop," but Gaffney kept punching him. Defendant said he eventually fell to
    the ground, causing his shirt to ride up and expose his gun. He put his hand on
    his gun to "retain it in the holster" while Gaffney held him down with his right
    6
    "Toxicology by the Medical Examiner's Office indicated . . . Gaffney's BAC
    [blood alcohol content] was .30% at 1:16 a.m., the time of his death," and "also
    indicated . . . Gaffney had consumed cocaine." Defendant's BAC was "estimated
    to have been approximately .13%, at 1:16 a.m."
    A-5473-17
    13
    arm and punched him in his face with his left fist. 7 Defendant said Gaffney then
    went towards defendant's "right side . . . towards [his] duty weapon." At that
    moment, defendant decided to "draw and shoot" to stop Gaffney from obtaining
    his gun. Defendant testified he was "quite certain [he] was going to die."
    Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's
    case pursuant to Rule 3:18-1, was denied.8 Following the jury's guilty verdict,
    defendant was sentenced on July 27, 2018, and a memorializing judgment of
    conviction was entered on the same date. This appeal followed.
    II.
    In Point I, defendant argues the judge incorrectly instructed the jury on
    self-defense. Specifically, defendant contends that in his initial charge to the
    jury, the judge left out "the crucial words: 'did not provoke the use of force
    against himself in the encounter.'" Although defendant acknowledges the judge
    "corrected" the error when he reinstructed the jury, he argues the judge "created
    7
    Defendant testified he viewed Gaffney "punch[ing him] repeatedly about [his]
    head and [his] head hitting the concrete" as "deadly force" being used against
    him.
    8
    After the motion was adjudicated, the State moved to reopen its case to call
    an additional witness, which was granted.
    A-5473-17
    14
    an incurable and insurmountable obstacle to the jury's clear understanding," as
    a result of which his conviction should be reversed. We disagree.
    In the initial charge on self-defense, the judge instructed the jury, in
    pertinent part:
    To put it succinctly, if the defendant had an honest and
    reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was
    immediately necessary to save his own life or to avoid
    serious bodily harm, he did not provoke the encounter
    with the purpose to kill or cause serious bodily harm,
    and he could not have safely retreated, then self-defense
    applies and the defendant is not guilty.
    [Emphasis added.]
    There was no objection to the charge.
    Following the charge, the jury sent out several notes regarding the self -
    defense charge. Consequently, the parties agreed although "there was no error
    in the jury charge that was given," a revised instruction was necessary to provide
    clarification. In the revised instruction that was agreed to by both parties, the
    judge stated in part:
    To put it succinctly, if the defendant had an honest and
    reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was
    immediately necessary to save his own life or to avoid
    serious bodily harm, he did not provoke the use of force
    against himself in the encounter with the purpose to kill
    or cause serious bodily harm and he could not have
    safely retreated when he resorted to the use of deadly
    A-5473-17
    15
    force, then self-defense applies and the defendant is not
    guilty.
    [Emphasis added.]
    Because defendant did not object to the jury charge, we review for plain
    error and only reverse if the error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust
    result." State v. McKinney, 
    223 N.J. 475
    , 494 (2015) (quoting R. 2:10-2).
    In the context of jury instructions, plain error is "[l]egal
    impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the
    substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently
    grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to
    convince the court that of itself the error possessed a
    clear capacity to bring about an unjust result."
    [State v. Camacho, 
    218 N.J. 533
    , 554 (2014) (quoting
    State v. Adams, 
    194 N.J. 186
    , 207 (2008)).]
    "Defendant is required to challenge instructions at the time of trial." State
    v. Morais, 
    359 N.J. Super. 123
    , 134 (App. Div. 2003) (citing R. 1:7-2). "Where
    there is a failure to object, it may be presumed that the instructions were
    adequate." 
    Id.
     at 134-35 (citing State v. Macon, 
    57 N.J. 325
    , 333 (1971)). "The
    absence of an objection to a charge is also indicative that trial counsel perceived
    no prejudice would result." Id. at 135. "Consequently, we should only reverse
    if we find plain error." Ibid. (citing R. 2:10-2).
    "An essential ingredient of a fair trial is that a jury receive adequate and
    understandable instructions."     State v. Afanador, 
    151 N.J. 41
    , 54 (1997).
    A-5473-17
    16
    "Appropriate and proper jury instructions are essential to a fair trial." State v.
    Green, 
    86 N.J. 281
    , 287 (1981). "The [trial] judge 'should explain to the jury in
    an understandable fashion its function in relation to the legal issues involved.'"
    McKinney, 223 N.J. at 495 (quoting Green, 
    86 N.J. at 287
    ). "The trial judge
    must deliver 'a comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must
    determine, including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may
    find.'" 
    Ibid.
     (quoting Green, 
    86 N.J. at 287-88
    ).
    When reviewing an alleged error in the jury charge, "portions of a charge
    alleged to be erroneous cannot be dealt with in isolation but the charge should
    be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect," State v. Wilbely, 
    63 N.J. 420
    , 422 (1973), and "to determine whether the challenged language was
    misleading or ambiguous," State v. Nelson, 
    173 N.J. 417
    , 447 (2002).              In
    "assessing the soundness of a jury instruction," a reviewing court considers how
    ordinary jurors would "understand the instructions as a whole," based upon "the
    evidence before them, and the circumstances of the trial." State v. Savage, 
    172 N.J. 374
    , 387 (2002) (quoting Crego v. Carp, 
    295 N.J. Super. 565
    , 573 (App.
    Div. 1996)).
    Moreover, the effect of any error "must be evaluated in light 'of the overall
    strength of the State's case.'" State v. Walker, 
    203 N.J. 73
    , 90 (2010) (quoting
    A-5473-17
    17
    State v. Chapland, 
    187 N.J. 275
    , 289 (2006)). "Nevertheless, because clear and
    correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in
    a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilitation under the plain error
    theory.'" Adams, 
    194 N.J. at 207
     (quoting State v. Jordan, 
    147 N.J. 409
    , 422
    (1997)).
    Here, the language defendant asserts was missing from the initial charge
    was included in the revised instruction. In fact, it was also included in the initial
    charge in the paragraph preceding the objectionable language as follows:
    [D]eadly force is not justifiable in a situation where the
    actor with the purpose of causing death or serious
    bodily harm provoked the use of force against himself
    in the same encounter . . . . Nor is the use of deadly
    force justifiable where the actor knows that he can
    avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
    safety by retreating.
    Even if there was confusion, which we are satisfied there was not, any confusion
    was clarified by the judge's revised instruction. Reviewing the charge as a
    whole, we find no plain error in the self-defense charge.
    III.
    In Point II, defendant argues the judge erred in failing to include a specific
    unanimity charge as part of the self-defense charge. Defendant claims there was
    "obvious jury confusion" regarding self-defense, which the judge failed to
    A-5473-17
    18
    clarify. According to defendant, the "instructions were 'at best confusing , and
    at worst misleading,'" warranting reversal of his conviction.
    In the initial self-defense charge to the jury, the judge stated:
    Under the law, the State must prove that self-
    defense does not apply here. The State must do so
    beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly[,] the State
    must show that: 1) the defendant's belief that the use of
    deadly force was necessary to save his own life or to
    avoid serious bodily harm was not honest and
    reasonable; or 2) although the defendant's belief was
    honest and reasonable, the defendant provoked the
    encounter with the purpose to kill or cause serious
    bodily harm; or 3) although the defendant's belief was
    honest and reasonable and the defendant did not
    provoke the encounter with the purpose to kill or cause
    serious bodily harm, the defendant could have retreated
    in complete safety.
    Here[,] there is no dispute that the defendant used
    deadly force against Mr. Gaffney.
    A reasonable belief is one which would be held
    by a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence
    situated as this defendant was. Please note that self-
    defense exonerates a person who uses force in the
    reasonable belief that such action was immediately
    necessary to prevent his or her death or serious injury,
    even if his belief was later proven mistaken.
    Accordingly, the law requires only a reasonable, not
    necessarily a correct, judgment. The belief must be
    sincerely held, that is, it must be a belief that is honestly
    held at the time.
    ln your inquiry as to whether the defendant knew
    that an opportunity to retreat with complete safety was
    A-5473-17
    19
    available, the total circumstances including the
    attendant excitement accompanying the situation must
    be considered. You must consider the defendant's
    ability to retreat at the time that the defendant decided
    to use deadly force.
    If the State does not satisfy its burden and you do
    have a reasonable doubt, then it must be resolved in
    favor of the defendant and you must acquit the
    defendant based upon self-defense.
    If the State has proved any one of these three
    items beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant
    did not act in self-defense and you must go on to
    consider the crime of reckless manslaughter.
    After the initial charge, the jury sent out a note asking the "judge [to] go
    over self-defense as stated on page [seventeen]." The jury was provided with a
    written copy of the jury charge. Page seventeen of the charge contained the
    language quoted above. However, because the parties were unclear about the
    request, the judge asked the jury for clarification. The jury then sent out a
    second note stating "[d]o all three questions have to be yes for self-defense or
    one of the three to be self-defense?"
    After conferring with counsel, the judge responded:
    Based on your prior question I know you're referring to
    the three questions that appear on page [seventeen] of
    [twenty-two] in the jury charge. Here is the response
    and I think there may be some confusion among you
    because the State has to disprove self-defense beyond a
    reasonable doubt. And when you're talking about
    A-5473-17
    20
    things being proved and things being disproved,
    sometimes it's hard to understand what "yes" means and
    what "no" means so I'll try to clarify that.
    Talking about the items one, two and three . . . on
    page [seventeen] of [twenty-two] of the jury charge, the
    State must prove one or two or three beyond a
    reasonable doubt in order to disprove self-defense.
    Said differently, if the State proves one or two or three
    beyond a reasonable doubt, then there can be no self-
    defense.
    Before the end of the day, at the request of the parties, the judge provided
    the jurors with further clarification on the self-defense charge as follows:
    Ladies and gentlemen, before I send you home for the
    day, I do want to provide you with some additional
    clarification with regard to the applicability of [one],
    [two], and [three], the meaning of those rules of law in
    the context of your determination.
    I'm referring to page [seventeen] of the charge.
    With regard to Item N[umber] [One] which addresses
    the defendant's belief that the use of deadly force was
    necessary to save his own life or to avoid serious bodily
    harm being honest or reasonable -- excuse me -- honest
    and reasonable, you're to analyze that question as of the
    time the deadly force was used. However, you are free
    to consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence
    that led up to that moment in time in performing that
    analysis.
    With regard to number [two], the provocation
    issue, whether or not the defendant provoked the
    encounter with the purpose to kill or cause serious
    bodily harm. It will be up to you to determine when the
    A-5473-17
    21
    encounter began, but it must be some time after the
    reconciliation that you've heard about in the testimony.
    With regard to item [three], which is the duty to
    retreat, the duty to retreat applies when the defendant
    resorts to the use of deadly force. So[,] when you're
    considering the opportunity to retreat, it must be as of
    the time deadly force is used. So[,] there's a little bit of
    a different time period depending upon which question
    you're looking to and I want to make sure there's no
    confusion that it is not all exactly the very same time
    period potentially.
    Both parties agreed the judge's clarification was responsive and appropriate.
    On the next court day, the parties again discussed the self-defense charge:
    [COURT]: So[,] we've had some discussions
    concerning the jury's questions that were sent to the
    [c]ourt, and I think we've reached a resolution of the
    issue, but I want to go over a couple things with counsel
    first.
    First of all, I believe that the parties agree that
    there was no error in the jury charge that was given to
    the jurors. Is that correct, [Prosecutor]?
    [PROSECUTOR]: Yes. Thank you.
    [COURT]: [Defense counsel]?
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That is correct.
    [COURT]: Now due to the jury's request for
    clarification of certain issues, the parties agree that it is
    prudent to provide them with a revised charge on self-
    defense . . . . The parties have reviewed the revised
    A-5473-17
    22
    charge . . . and consent to it. Do I have that correct,
    [Prosecutor]?
    [PROSECUTOR]: Yes. Thank you.
    [COURT]: [Defense counsel]?
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.
    In the revised charge, the judge instructed the jury:
    Now we're getting to the point in the self-defense
    charge that's modified to address your questions.
    The State must prove that self-defense does not
    apply here. The State must do so beyond a reasonable
    doubt. Accordingly, the State must prove any one of
    the following beyond a reasonable doubt to show that
    self-defense does not apply here: 1) At the time
    defendant resorted to deadly force his belief that the use
    of deadly force was necessary to save his own life or to
    avoid serious bodily harm was not honest and
    reasonable; or 2) After the reconciliation between
    defendant and Mr. Gaffney, the defendant provoked the
    use of deadly force against himself in the encounter
    with the purpose to kill or cause serious bodily harm.
    It is for the jury to decide what the encounter was and
    when the encounter began after the reconciliation
    between defendant and Mr. Gaffney; or 3) At the time
    he resorted to deadly force the defendant could have
    retreated in complete safety.
    Here, there is no dispute that the defendant used
    deadly force against Mr. Gaffney.
    ....
    A-5473-17
    23
    If the State does not satisfy its burden and you do
    have a reasonable doubt, then it must be resolved in
    favor of the defendant and you must acquit the
    defendant based upon self-defense.
    If the State has proved any one of these three
    items beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant
    did not act in self-defense and you must go on to
    consider the crime of reckless manslaughter.
    There was no objection to the revised charge.
    Later that day, the jury sent another note, stating "[j]ury cannot come to
    unanimous decision on question one on the verdict sheet."9 After discussing the
    note with counsel, the judge — with counsels' approval — instructed the jury to
    continue deliberations as it had "not spent any significant amount of time
    deliberating" given the "interruptions for breaks and video readbacks and
    testimony readbacks." The judge, without objection, also repeated the portion
    of the general charge relating to the jurors' obligation "to consult with one
    another" and "deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement if you can do so
    9
    Question one on the verdict sheet read:
    Did the State disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the
    applicability of self-defense? If your answer is yes,
    proceed to question two. If your answer is no, then you
    have found the defendant not guilty due to self-defense.
    Stop your deliberations and notify the Sheriff's Officer,
    but do not reveal your results.
    A-5473-17
    24
    without violence to individual judgment." The judge also reminded the jurors
    to "not surrender [their] honest conviction[s] as to the weight or effect of
    evidence . . . solely because of the opinion of [a] fellow juror[] or for the mere
    purpose of returning a verdict." The jury did not reach a verdict that day.
    On the next court day, the judge addressed an e-mail he received from
    defense counsel suggesting, in response to the jury's note regarding its inability
    to reach a verdict on question one, the court should instruct the jury that its
    decision must be unanimous as to whether the State met its burden to disprove
    self-defense under prong one, two, or three of the self-defense charge. In other
    words, according to defense counsel, all jurors had to agree the State proved, for
    example, defendant could have retreated for the State to meet its burden. If six
    jurors believed defendant could have retreated, and six jurors believed defendant
    provoked the victim, then the State did not meet its burden. The judge responded
    that the issue raised in defense counsel's e-mail was premature considering the
    jury's continued deliberations without additional questions.
    Later that day, the jury sent another note, asking for, among other things,
    "more clarification on justification, self-defense, page [seventeen] . . . where
    self-defense does not apply here. Number one, number [two], and number
    A-5473-17
    25
    [three] in plain English." In response, with the consent of the parties, the judge
    instructed the jury:
    1. You have heard the defendant say that he used
    deadly force because at the time he used deadly force
    he believed that it was necessary to save his own life or
    to avoid serious bodily harm to himself.
    The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
    that defendant's expressed belief was not honest or that
    it was not reasonable. If the State proves this beyond a
    reasonable doubt, then there is no self-defense.
    2. Another way self-defense could be disproven is by
    the State proving beyond a reasonable doubt that after
    defendant and Mr. Gaffney shook hands outside of
    Paddy's Place, defendant with the purpose to kill or
    cause serious bodily harm to Mr. Gaffney provoked the
    use of force against himself.
    If the State proves this beyond a reasonable
    doubt, then there can be no self-defense.
    [3.] Another way self-defense could be disproven is by
    the State proving beyond a reasonable doubt that at the
    time defendant used deadly force defendant could have
    retreated in complete safety. If the State proves this
    beyond a reasonable doubt, then there can be no self-
    defense.
    ....
    If the State has proved any one of these three
    items beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant
    did not act in self-defense and you must go on to
    consider the crime of reckless manslaughter.
    A-5473-17
    26
    If the State does not satisfy its burden and you do
    have a reasonable doubt, then it must be resolved in
    favor of the defendant and you must acquit the
    defendant based upon self-defense.
    Following this instruction, the judge asked if the parties had any issues
    with what he read. Defense counsel requested that the judge instruct the jury,
    "if the State has not proved any one of these three items beyond a reasonable
    doubt, then the State does not satisf[y] its burden." The judge responded:
    I understand your position. I'm looking at what you
    propose compared to the words that I read. I find it to
    be a distinction without a difference and I don't find that
    the clarification is necessary . . . . I'm not going to give
    the clarification that you seek because I think it's clear.
    I think the burdens are appropriately identified . . . and
    the jury was properly instructed.
    The jury did not ask any further questions regarding the self-defense charge.
    On appeal, defendant argues the judge should have instructed the jury
    "that it needed to unanimously agree on the factors disproved by the State
    beyond a reasonable doubt."
    "The notion of unanimity requires 'jurors to be in substantial agreement
    as to just what a defendant did' before determining his or her guilt or innocence."
    State v. Frisby, 
    174 N.J. 583
    , 596 (2002) (quoting United States v. Gipson, 
    553 F.2d 453
    , 457 (5th Cir. 1997)); see also Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___,
    
    140 S. Ct. 1390
    , 1396-97 (2020) (recognizing "a defendant 'enjoys a
    A-5473-17
    27
    constitutional right to demand that his liberty should not be taken from him
    except by the joint action of the court and the unanimous verdict of a jury of
    twelve persons'" (quoting Thompson v. Utah, 
    170 U.S. 343
    , 351 (1898))).
    Indeed, both the New Jersey Constitution and Court Rules require a unanimous
    jury verdict in a criminal case. N.J. Const. art. I, para. 9; R. 1:8-9.
    "Ordinarily, a general instruction on the requirement of unanimity suffices
    to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous on whatever specifications it finds
    to be the predicate of a guilty verdict." State v. Parker, 
    124 N.J. 628
    , 641 (1991).
    Our Supreme Court has held, however, that a specific unanimity requirement is
    necessary "in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict" and, in such
    cases, "the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction."
    
    Id. at 637
     (quoting United States v. North, 
    910 F.2d 843
    , 875 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
    This circumstance can arise where the facts are "exceptionally complex" or
    where there is a variance between the indictment and the trial proofs. Id. at 636.
    Moreover, "[a]lthough such a charge should be granted on request, in the
    absence of a specific request, the failure so to charge does not necessarily
    constitute reversible error." Id. at 637. The "core question" in such cases is
    whether the "instructions 'as a whole posed a genuine risk that the jury would
    be confused.'" Id. at 638 (quoting North, 
    910 F.2d at 951
    ).
    A-5473-17
    28
    Here, the judge gave a general unanimity charge, in accord with the Model
    Jury Charges (Criminal), "Criminal Final Charge" (rev. May 12, 2014). At the
    end of the instructions, the judge stated in pertinent part:
    You are to apply the law as I have instructed you
    to the facts as you find them to be for the purpose of
    arriving at a fair and correct verdict. The verdict must
    represent the considered judgment of each juror and
    must be unanimous as to each charge. This means all
    of you must agree if the defendant is guilty or not guilty
    on each charge. That would apply to the issue of self-
    defense as well.
    ....
    You may return on each crime charged a verdict
    of either not guilty or guilty. Your verdict, whatever it
    may be as to each crime charged, or the issue of self-
    defense, must be unanimous. Each of the [twelve]
    members of the deliberating jury must agree as to the
    verdict.
    [Emphasis added.]
    We are satisfied that the charge given was sufficient. The State did not
    advance different theories based on different acts and different evidence.
    Moreover, nothing in our jurisprudence suggests that the jury's findings need be
    unanimous on how the State disproves self-defense so long as the jury
    unanimously agrees that the State disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable
    doubt. See, e.g., Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Justification – Self Defense
    A-5473-17
    29
    (In Self Protection) (N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4)" (rev. June 13, 2011).10 Nonetheless,
    relying on State v. Tindell, 
    417 N.J. Super. 530
     (App. Div. 2011), defendant
    asserts a specific unanimity instruction was required.
    In Tindell, we held:
    The risk of a non-unanimous verdict occurs if, as here,
    there are multiple alleged victims who are not
    separately identified in the charging instrument, by
    name or by such other characteristics as to enable a
    reasonable person to ascertain their identity as the
    victims of the crime, and are not specifically identified
    as such in the jury charge and on the verdict sheet.
    Here, the nature of the alleged threats and the
    circumstances surrounding them required that the
    victims be identified with particularity. Without such
    specificity, there is a distinct and legally unacceptable
    risk that a jury may return a verdict that was not based
    on the unanimous judgment of the deliberating jurors.
    [Id. at 555.]
    10
    As for other jurisdictions, while not controlling, in People v. Mosely, 
    488 P.3d 1074
    , 1076 (Colo. 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that "the jury
    need not unanimously agree on the specific reason that self-defense was
    disproven, so long as it unanimously agrees that the prosecution disproved self -
    defense beyond a reasonable doubt." The Court explained that self-defense was
    "treated as an additional element that the prosecution bears the burden of
    disproving," and "a jury must unanimously agree only on whether, but not how,
    each element of a charged offense was established[.]" Id. at 1081. See also
    State v. Mekoshvili, 
    223 A.3d 834
    , 841-43 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020) (finding
    "unanimity on whichever element of self-defense the jury might find to have
    been disproven" was not required), certif. granted, 
    223 A.3d 60
     (Conn. 2020);
    Harrod v. State, 
    203 S.W.3d 622
    , 628 (Tex. App. 2006) (holding that the jury
    was "not required to agree unanimously on the specific component of self-
    defense on which it was not persuaded").
    A-5473-17
    30
    None of the concerns identified in Tindell that warranted a specific
    unanimity charge are applicable here. There were no separate evidential theories
    or victims presented in the State's proofs.
    Defendant also relies on State v. Bzura, 
    261 N.J. Super. 602
     (App. Div.
    1993) to support his position, but his reliance is misplaced. In Bzura, the
    defendant was charged with false swearing under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2(a), but the
    indictment actually alleged "the form of false swearing proscribed by N.J.S.A.
    2C:28-2[(c)]." 
    Id. at 613
    . Although the trial judge allowed the State "to amend
    the indictment to allege a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2[(c)] rather than N.J.S.A.
    2C:28-2[(a),]" the judge delivered jury instructions that described elements of
    both false swearing offenses. 
    Id. at 613-615
    .
    In reversing defendant's false swearing conviction, we held:
    [T]he jury instruction would have permitted some
    jurors to vote for a guilty verdict based on the form of
    false swearing proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2(a), . . .
    while permitting other jurors to find guilt based on the
    form of false swearing proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:28-
    2(c) . . . . To permit individual jurors to agree on a
    guilty verdict based on such different factual predicates
    would countenance a non-unanimous jury verdict . . . .
    [Id. at 614-15.]
    The facts here are clearly distinguishable.
    A-5473-17
    31
    Likewise, defendant's reliance on State v. Jackson, 
    326 N.J. Super. 276
    (App. Div. 1999) and Frisby, 
    174 N.J. at 593
    , is misguided. In Jackson, we held
    that although the State had established a prima facie case that the defendant
    possessed cocaine found in the pocket of some pants, the evidence was
    insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the defendant possessed other
    cocaine found in a dresser drawer. 
    326 N.J. Super. at 279
    . Because the jury
    charge failed to distinguish between the two, we concluded "it [was] possible
    that some of the jurors convicted defendant based only on possession of cocaine
    found in the dresser drawer.        Thus, the jury's required unanimity was
    compromised." 
    Id. at 282
    .
    In Frisby, the State offered two separate theories to support the charge of
    endangering the welfare of a child: 1) injuring the child or failing to properly
    supervise him, which resulted in the injury; or 2) abandoning the child. 
    174 N.J. at 599
    . To that end, the State advanced different theories "based on different
    acts and entirely different evidence." 
    Ibid.
     Our Supreme Court held because
    "the allegations . . . were 'contradictory,' 'conceptually distinct,' and not even
    'marginally related' to each other," the general unanimity charge was insufficient
    and a more specific unanimity instruction was required. 
    Id. at 599-600
    .
    A-5473-17
    32
    In contrast, here, the State's evidence was uncomplicated. The State did
    not try to prove that defendant committed the crime by presenting different
    theories based on different acts or different evidence. The State presented only
    one theory to support the charge of reckless manslaughter — defendant and
    Gaffney engaged in a fist fight, which ended in defendant shooting and killing
    Gaffney. Thus, there was no danger of a fragmented verdict and a specific
    unanimity charge was not required. The judge's charge was appropriate and did
    not sanction a non-unanimous verdict.
    As to jury confusion, we are satisfied that any initial confusion the jury
    may have had about the self-defense charge was remedied by the judge's answers
    to the jury's questions and the judge's supplemental instructions, which were
    sanctioned by both parties. It is firmly established that "[w]hen a jury requests
    clarification," the trial court "is obligated to clear the confusion." State v.
    Conway, 
    193 N.J. Super. 133
    , 157 (App. Div. 1984). If the jury's question is
    ambiguous, the trial court must clarify the jury's inquiry by ascertaining the
    meaning of its request. State v. Graham, 
    285 N.J. Super. 337
    , 342 (App. Div.
    1995). Here, the judge satisfied his obligation as evidenced by the fact that the
    jury had no further questions or requests for clarification of the self-defense
    charge. See State v. McClain, 
    248 N.J. Super. 409
    , 421 (App. Div. 1991) ("The
    A-5473-17
    33
    failure of the jury to ask for further clarification or indicate confusion [after
    readback of jury charge] demonstrates that the response was satisfactory.").
    IV.
    In Point III, defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the judge
    gave an erroneous instruction on "the timing with regard to the duty to retreat"
    in connection with the self-defense charge. Specifically, he argues the judge
    should have instructed the jury that the duty to retreat was "at the moment of the
    use of deadly force" and not "after the second altercation."
    After the final charge, the jury sent out a note, asking "Does the 'encounter'
    begin when Gaffney came out of the bar or when [defendant] was on the
    ground?" With the agreement of the parties, the judge responded, "When the
    third encounter begins is for you to decide. However, it must be after the
    defendant and Mr. Gaffney reconciled." Later that same day, with the agreement
    of the parties, the judge further clarified the duty to retreat, telling the jurors
    "the duty to retreat applies when the defendant resorts to the use of deadly force.
    So[,] when you're considering the opportunity to retreat, it must be as of the time
    deadly force is used."
    On the next court day, following discussions with the parties regarding
    "the jury's request for clarification of certain issues" related to the self-defense
    A-5473-17
    34
    charge, the judge determined with the agreement of the parties that it would be
    "prudent to provide [the jury] with a revised charge on self-defense." The judge
    then gave the jury the revised instructions after the parties reviewed and agreed
    on them. As to the duty to retreat, in the revised instructions, the judge told the
    jury:
    In your inquiry as to whether the defendant knew
    that an opportunity to retreat with complete safety was
    available, the total circumstances including the
    attendant excitement accompanying the situation must
    be considered. You must consider the defendant's
    ability to retreat at the time that the defendant decided
    to use deadly force.
    Neither party objected to the revised instruction. Indeed, the prosecutor
    stated he and defense counsel "worked on the language yesterday and it's
    acceptable."      Nonetheless, on appeal, defendant now argues the revised
    instruction on the "duty to retreat" was erroneous. However, we find no error,
    let alone plain error, in the instruction.
    The general rule is that a person is not justified in using deadly force if he
    may avoid death or serious bodily injury by retreating. N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2).
    "The Code requires that if a person 'knows that he can avoid the necessity of
    using [deadly] force with complete safety by retreating,' he must do so or lose
    self-defense as a justification for his conduct." State v. Rodriguez, 
    195 N.J. 165
    ,
    A-5473-17
    35
    175 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)). The duty
    to retreat arises only in cases involving deadly force. Stated differently, there
    is no duty to retreat unless deadly force is used. See State v. Moore, 
    158 N.J. 292
    , 304, 308-11 (1999) (explaining there is no duty to retreat where the actor
    "display[s] or brandish[es] a firearm . . . when the need for self-protection is
    reasonably perceived and he merely intends to create an apprehension in the
    aggressor that he will use deadly force if necessary" (quoting State v. Harmon,
    
    203 N.J. Super. 216
    , 223 (App. Div. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 
    104 N.J. 189
    (1986))). There is also no duty to retreat unless one "can do so safely." State v.
    Gartland, 
    149 N.J. 456
    , 467 (1997).
    Here, the judge properly instructed the jury that defendant's duty to retreat
    arose when he decided to use deadly force. Up until that point in time, defendant
    did not have a duty to retreat. Consequently, there was no error in the judge's
    revised instructions.
    V.
    In Point IV, defendant argues the judge deprived him of his right to "fully
    cross-examine" one of the State's witnesses, Robert Lima. We disagree.
    On numerous occasions during Lima's cross-examination, defense counsel
    contrasted Lima's recollection of events on the night in question with the
    A-5473-17
    36
    videotape, while injecting counsel's own observations of the video.          The
    prosecutor eventually asked to be heard at sidebar:
    I think we've established Mr. Lima remembers a
    different sequence than on the video. I just want to be
    careful moving forward and I don't think counsel is
    doing this purposely, but injecting helpful facts that
    enlarge contradiction, so if he could just keep – maybe
    just the time frame, describing what the parties are
    doing in the time frame almost as a refreshed
    recollection . . . . So[,] I'm just asking you isolate it to
    the minute and time without the over editorialization.
    The judge responded to the prosecutor's objection as follows:
    Here is what I'm seeing. I'm seeing that the defense is
    seeking an advantage, playing out discrepancies
    between the witness' recollection and the tape.
    However, when the discrepancy is found, the defense
    goes forward and tries to amplify the difference by
    switching between temporal positioning, meaning what
    the witness recalls and what the witness is seeing today
    on the tape to try to broaden the gap between the
    discrepancy. I think we're now at the point where it's
    confusing the jury in the sense of it's taking away from
    what this witness says he recalls and now we're getting
    into an exposition on what this witness believes he sees
    on the tape. The witness has recounted the events as he
    recalls them twice now. The tape is the tape, and
    arguments can be made from the tape with regard to the
    reliability and credibility of this witness. I think at this
    point we're now getting into an area where the jurors
    are going to end up being confused and we're not
    serving a useful purpose through this exercise.
    Defense counsel disagreed with the judge's assessment, saying:
    A-5473-17
    37
    I'm going back and forth to make sure we're talking
    about the same thing and always differentiating what is
    on the video and what he recalls. This is cross-
    examination. I can lead this witness. I want to show
    the jury that he is manufacturing. He's embellishing.
    His memory is abysmally bad and he does invent
    things; and when we go back and review the tape he
    sees that it doesn't square with what he said, and then
    we need to probe so that the jury sees this witness is
    abysmally unreliable.
    In response, the judge told defense counsel his method was improper and
    suggested "show[ing Lima] the tape and ask[ing] him if he believe[d] the tape
    show[ed] what he recalled." According to the judge, that way, Lima will "give
    you a yes or no" answer. The following colloquy ensued:
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]:             This little incident right
    here, the second push. There's a question of the first
    push and second push. He said it was the first push. He
    acknowledged it. His position conformed with the
    video. Okay. We're good. Now we have a second
    fight. He's saying that Macchia goes after Gaffney. I'm
    using the push as a point of reference in the testimony
    to show it's manifestly false. He didn't go after him.
    [COURT]: The issue whether or not he went after him
    is an issue to be decided by the jury upon viewing the
    tape. It's not going to depend upon whether or not the
    witness agrees with what the tape shows. What I would
    like to have happen, I would like to stop the practice of
    going back and forth between the tape and the witness'
    testimony and trying to in a positive feedback way have
    the witness continue to be impeached. It's not serving
    a purpose. You'll have your arguments.
    A-5473-17
    38
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]:          This is the first time in
    my entire career impeaching a State's witness is
    considered a bad thing. That's the essence of cross-
    examination.
    [COURT]: That's not what I'm saying. The practice
    that you're employing is confusing and misleading to
    the jury. It is not serving a useful purpose. You have
    your grounds for argument from impeachment. I'm not
    saying you can't question this witness. What I'm
    saying, you have to change your method.
    [Emphasis added.]
    Following the sidebar discussion, defense counsel continued to question Lima
    using the surveillance videotape.        Neither the prosecutor nor the court
    interjected.
    "Both the federal and New Jersey constitutions guarantee criminal
    defendants the right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against'" them. State
    v. Budis, 
    125 N.J. 519
    , 530 (1991) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VI; N.J. Const.
    art. I, para. 10). "The right to cross-examine is an essential element of that
    right." State v. Harvey, 
    151 N.J. 117
    , 188 (1997). The right of confrontation
    affords defendants the opportunity "to cross-examine the state's witnesses" and
    "protects against improper restrictions on questions defense counsel may ask
    during cross-examination." Budis, 
    125 N.J. at 530-31
    . "It further encompasses
    the right to elicit favorable testimony on cross-examination of the state's
    A-5473-17
    39
    witnesses." 
    Id. at 531
    . Nevertheless, "evidence helpful to the defense" may be
    excluded "if exclusion serves the interests of fairness and reliability." 
    Id.
     at 531-
    32. "Thus, a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation does not guarantee
    unlimited cross-examination of a witness." Harvey, 
    151 N.J. at 188
    .
    "The scope of cross-examination . . . rests within the sound discretion of
    the trial court." Ibid.; see also N.J.R.E. 611(a)(3) and (b) (allowing the court to
    exercise reasonable control over cross-examination to "protect witnesses from
    harassment or undue embarrassment"). "[T]rial courts 'retain wide latitude . . .
    to impose reasonable limits on . . . cross-examination based on concerns about,
    among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness'
    safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.'" Budis,
    
    125 N.J. at 532
     (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 
    475 U.S. 673
    , 679 (1986)).
    Indeed, "a cross-examiner does not have a license to roam at will under the guise
    of impeaching credibility." State v. Engel, 
    249 N.J. Super. 336
    , 375 (App. Div.
    1991). "A trial judge has broad discretion to determine the proper limits of
    cross-examination of a witness whose credibility is put in issue." 
    Ibid.
     We "will
    not interfere with [the trial court's] control [of cross-examination] unless clear
    error and prejudice are shown." State v. Gaikwad, 
    349 N.J. Super. 62
    , 86-87
    A-5473-17
    40
    (App. Div. 2002) (quoting State v. Murray, 
    240 N.J. Super. 378
    , 394 (App. Div.
    1990)).
    Here, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge limiting defense
    counsel's method of going "back and forth" between Lima's testimony and the
    videotape based on the judge's determination that the methodology was
    "confusing and misleading to the jury." Notably, the judge did not stop defense
    counsel from questioning Lima or from using the videotape; rather, the judge
    simply instructed defense counsel to question Lima in a less confusing manner.
    As the judge astutely pointed out, "[t]he tape is the tape, and arguments can be
    made from the tape with regard to the reliability and credibility of th[e] witness"
    regardless of "whether or not the witness agrees with what the tape shows."
    VI.
    In Point V, defendant argues the prosecutor misstated the law on self-
    defense and duty to retreat in summations, and the misstatement was
    compounded by the prosecutor's use of a PowerPoint presentation, which
    included the misstatement.      Defendant urges, "th[e] visual imagery was
    extremely prejudicial," and the judge's refusal to give a curative instruction
    deprived him of a fair trial, warranting a reversal of his conviction.
    A-5473-17
    41
    During summation, the prosecutor argued, "There are options that were
    not taken. [Defendant] could have left in complete safety between the final
    encounter and the second [sic] encounter. His wife asked him to go. He
    doesn't." Defense counsel promptly objected. The judge sustained the objection
    and instructed the jury to "disregard the last comment by the prosecutor."
    The prosecutor continued, "At the time another option that's available to
    a trained officer, [defendant], is to call 9-1-1. Now, clearly he's getting beaten
    up. He's getting beaten repeatedly in the face. He can't do that to himself. He
    can't get to his phone." Defense counsel again objected. At sidebar, defense
    counsel stated: "We have the visual up which is perpetuating an incorrect
    statement that he couldn't retreat, the second fight, which is the essence of the
    sustained objection. I originally asked it to be taken off. It's the first line. "
    After viewing the screen displaying the prosecutor's PowerPoint, the judge
    directed the prosecutor to remove the objectionable slide and "continue with
    [his] argument."
    Shortly thereafter, defense counsel made another objection, arguing the
    PowerPoint slide displayed an "[i]ncorrect statement of the law." Defense
    counsel stated: "It's not provoke, it's provoke with intent to cause serious bodily
    injury or death, and that's the essence of the difficulty here."        The judge
    A-5473-17
    42
    responded he did not "see any harm" and did not "see a necessity for [a] curative
    instruction" because defense counsel had "given a clear explanation of the law"
    during his summations and the judge would "give a clear explanation of the law"
    during the final charge. Further, according to the judge, "the jury [would] be
    instructed to disregard anything that differs from" the court's instructions on the
    law.
    "[P]rosecutors in criminal cases are expected to make vigorous and
    forceful closing arguments to juries" and are therefore "afforded considerable
    leeway in closing arguments as long as their comments are reasonably related to
    the scope of the evidence presented." State v. Frost, 
    158 N.J. 76
    , 82 (1999). In
    other words, as long as the prosecutor "stays within the evidence and the
    legitimate inferences therefrom," State v. R.B., 
    183 N.J. 308
    , 330 (2005)
    (quoting State v. Mayberry, 
    52 N.J. 413
    , 437 (1968)), "[t]here is no error," State
    v. Carter, 
    91 N.J. 86
    , 125 (1982).       In that regard, "[v]isual aids such as
    PowerPoint presentations" are permissible in closing arguments but "must
    adhere to the same standards as counsels' spoken words." State v. Williams, 
    244 N.J. 592
    , 617 (2021).
    On the other hand, "prosecutors may not advance improper arguments,"
    State v. Lazo, 
    209 N.J. 9
    , 29 (2012), and "[i]t is as much [the prosecutor's] duty
    A-5473-17
    43
    to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction
    as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one," Frost, 
    158 N.J. at 83
     (quoting State v. Farrell, 
    61 N.J. 99
    , 105 (1972)). Nonetheless, "even when
    a prosecutor's remarks stray over the line of permissible commentary," reversal
    of a conviction is not automatically required. State v. McNeil-Thomas, 
    238 N.J. 256
    , 275 (2019). Rather, "the severity of the misconduct and its prejudicial
    effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial" is weighed, and a conviction is
    reversed only if "the conduct was so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair
    trial."     State v. Wakefield, 
    190 N.J. 397
    , 437 (2007) (quoting State v.
    Papasavvas, 
    163 N.J. 565
    , 625 (2000)); see State v. Jackson, 
    211 N.J. 394
    , 408-
    09 (2012) ("'[N]ot every deviation from the legal prescriptions governing
    prosecutorial conduct' requires reversal." (quoting State v. Williams, 
    113 N.J. 393
    , 452 (1988))).
    "Prosecutorial comments are deemed to have violated the defendant's right
    to a fair trial when they 'so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to mak e the
    resulting conviction a denial of due process.'"         Jackson, 211 N.J. at 409
    (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 
    112 N.J. 225
    , 338 (1988)).
    A determination as to whether a prosecutor's comments had the capacity to
    deprive defendant of a fair trial must be made "within the context of the trial as
    A-5473-17
    44
    a whole." State v. Feaster, 
    156 N.J. 1
    , 64 (1998). To warrant reversal, there
    must have been "some degree of possibility that [the prosecutor's comments] led
    to an unjust result." R.B., 
    183 N.J. at 330
     (quoting State v. Bankston, 
    63 N.J. 263
    , 273 (1973)). That "possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a
    reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might
    not have reached." 
    Ibid.
     (alteration in original) (quoting Bankston, 
    63 N.J. at 273
    ).
    Here, following defense counsel's objection, the judge instructed the jury
    to disregard the prosecutor's comment regarding when defendant could have left
    the scene. Additionally, the judge instructed the prosecutor to remove the
    objectionable slide from his PowerPoint presentation, thereby minimizing any
    prejudice.11 What is more, in accordance with the Model Jury Charges, in the
    final charge, the judge instructed the jury:
    You must accept and apply this law for this case as I
    give it to you in this charge. Any ideas you have of
    what the law is or what the law should be or any
    statements by the attorneys as to what the law may be
    11
    In Williams, 244 N.J. at 616, the Court stated "[t]o avoid objection or possible
    error, we encourage counsel to disclose to each other and the court any visual
    aids intended to be used during closing argument, but we do not require that
    practice." It is unclear in the record whether the PowerPoint presentation was
    disclosed to counsel and the court prior to summations, but, as the Court stated,
    such disclosure is not required. Ibid.
    A-5473-17
    45
    must be disregarded by you if they are in conflict with
    my charge.
    ....
    Arguments, statements, remarks, openings, and
    summations of counsel are not evidence and must not
    be treated as evidence. Although the attorneys may
    point out what they think important in this case, you
    must rely solely upon your understanding and
    recollection of the evidence that was admitted during
    the trial. Whether or not the defendant has been proven
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is for you to
    determine based on all of the evidence presented during
    the trial. Any comments by counsel are not controlling.
    We are satisfied that the judge's instruction on the applicable law and the
    import of any contrary statements by the attorneys as to the applicable law
    sufficed to cure any error. "The authority is abundant that courts presume juries
    follow instructions." State v. Herbert, 
    457 N.J. Super. 490
    , 503 (App. Div.
    2019).
    VII.
    In Point VI, defendant argues the judge erred in "admitting many highly
    prejudicial hearsay statements of Gaffney through the trial testimony of Robert
    Lima." We disagree.
    Pre-trial, the State moved to admit through Lima's testimony three hearsay
    statements Gaffney allegedly made to defendant prior to being shot: 1) "I'm
    A-5473-17
    46
    done"; 2) "What's going on here?"; 12 and 3) "Stop, stop, stop." The State argued
    Gaffney's statements were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the
    hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3), and were relevant because "the verbal jousting
    and repartee between Gaffney and [d]efendant [were] a central feature of the
    case."     In response, defense counsel argued Gaffney's statements were not
    relevant and Lima's recollection was so poor that it was inherently unreliable
    and thus excludable under N.J.R.E. 403.13
    In a written opinion issued May 14, 2018, the judge granted the State's
    motion. Initially, the judge found Gaffney's statements were "relevant to the
    issues of the reasonableness of [d]efendant's use of deadly force; opportunity to
    retreat; and provocation." Further, according to the judge, the statements were
    "not unfounded speculation or a general statement of fear"; instead, they were
    "contemporaneous expressions of intent made directly to the [d]efendant" and
    "reflect[ed] Gaffney's mental . . . condition."    Additionally, "although two
    separate altercations occurred," according to the judge, because "there was no
    cooling down period between the two" and "[b]oth [d]efendant and Gaffney
    12
    The statement "What's going on here?" was never testified to at trial by any
    witness.
    13
    Defendant did not object to similar hearsay statements made by Vinsko.
    A-5473-17
    47
    were under the stress of the events," the statements "were made without the
    opportunity to fabricate." Thus, the judge admitted the statements under the
    state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3), as well as the
    excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2). 14
    Further, in rejecting defendant's argument that Lima's testimony was
    excludable under N.J.R.E. 403 due to the unreliability of Lima's recollection,
    the judge found "[t]he probative value of the evidence [was] not substantially
    outweighed by its potential prejudice." The judge explained:
    The [c]ourt has no doubt that Mr. Lima was a legally
    competent witness. There is no indicia of fraud or any
    abuse of the integrity of the [c]ourt that would warrant
    the court to preclude his testimony. The defense is free
    to attack his recollection and credibility on cross-
    examination before the jury.
    We review "the trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion."
    State v. Gorthy, 
    226 N.J. 516
    , 539 (2016). Thus, "trial courts are granted broad
    discretion in making decisions regarding evidentiary matters, such as whether a
    piece of evidence is relevant . . . and whether a particular hearsay statement is
    14
    The judge further noted that if the statements were not being offered for the
    truth of the matter asserted, "but to show that [d]efendant was aggressive after
    the end of the first fight," then they were also "admissible as non-hearsay
    evidence."
    A-5473-17
    48
    admissible under an appropriate exception." State v. Scharf, 
    225 N.J. 547
    , 572
    (2016) (citations omitted).
    When a declarant's "state of mind . . . is at issue in a case," N.J.R.E.
    803(c)(3) "allows admission of extrajudicial statements to show the [declarant's]
    state of mind." State v. Benedetto, 
    120 N.J. 250
    , 255-56 (1990). Specifically,
    under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3), a statement is admissible if it was "made in good faith"
    and described "the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or
    physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or
    bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the
    fact remembered or believed."
    "The necessary predicate to admission of such evidence is that: a) the
    statement reflects a mental or physical condition of the declarant which
    constitutes a genuine issue in the case; or b) the statement is otherwise relevant
    to prove or explain the declarant's conduct." State v. Downey, 
    206 N.J. Super. 382
    , 390 (App. Div. 1986). That said, "[t]he 'state of mind' hearsay exception
    should be construed narrowly, focusing specifically on the declarant's state of
    mind and whether that state of mind is directly relevant to the issues at trial."
    State v. McLaughlin, 
    205 N.J. 185
    , 189 (2011).
    A-5473-17
    49
    "[W]hen a victim's state-of-mind hearsay statements are relevant to show
    the declarant's own conduct, and when such conduct is known or probably
    known to the defendant, it also can give rise to motive, and the statements
    become admissible for that purpose, subject to the usual balancing under
    N.J.R.E. 403." State v. Calleia, 
    206 N.J. 274
    , 296 (2011). "When a victim's
    projected conduct permits an inference that defendant may have been motivated
    by that conduct to act in the manner alleged by the prosecution, the statement
    satisfies the threshold for relevance." Ibid.; see, e.g., State v. Rogers, 
    19 N.J. 218
    , 228 (1955) ("All evidentiary circumstances which are relevant to or tend to
    shed light on the motive or intent of the defendant or which tend fairly to explain
    his actions are admissible . . . ."). "Of course, trial courts should remain vigilant
    to ensure that an evidentiary submission's probative value is not substantially
    outweighed by prejudicial effect." Calleia, 
    206 N.J. at
    297 (citing N.J.R.E. 403).
    "Particularly where the declarant is deceased, the rule is rooted in
    necessity and justified upon the basis that the circumstances provide a rational
    substitute for the benefit of cross-examination." Downey, 
    206 N.J. Super. at 390
    .   "It is said that the purpose and object underlying the confrontation
    requirement are satisfied because the circumstances afford a sufficient guarantee
    of testimonial trustworthiness to justify admission." 
    Ibid.
     Thus, the victim's
    A-5473-17
    50
    state of mind is a relevant issue to be decided by the jury where there is "an issue
    as to whether a deceased might have harbored a suicidal design," or "was
    accidentally killed," or "so feared the accused that he was an unlikely aggressor
    where the justification of self-defense is raised." 
    Id. at 391
    . Even "[w]hen the
    victim's declarations do not express fear of the defendant, they might be
    admissible . . . as a declaration of the victim's state of mind." State v. Machado,
    
    111 N.J. 480
    , 489 (1988).
    Here, the judge acknowledged for the State to overcome defendant's self-
    defense claim, it would have to prove:
    1) [d]efendant's belief that the use of deadly force was
    necessary to save his own life or to avoid serious bodily
    injury was not honest or reasonable; or 2) although
    [d]efendant's belief was honest and reasonable,
    [d]efendant was the aggressor; or 3) although
    [d]efendant's belief was honest and reasonable, and
    [d]efendant was not the aggressor, [d]efendant could
    have retreated in complete safety.
    The judge correctly concluded Gaffney's statements were relevant and
    admissible to show Gaffney's actions in response to defendant's conduct and
    "that defendant may have been motivated . . . to act in the manner alleged by the
    prosecution." Calleia, 
    206 N.J. at 296
    .
    As noted, alternatively, the judge found Gaffney's statements were
    admissible as excited utterances under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2). Under the Rule, three
    A-5473-17
    51
    conditions must be met. The statement must be: 1) related to a startling event;
    2) made under the stress of excitement caused by the event; and 3) made without
    opportunity for the declarant to deliberate or fabricate. State ex rel. J.A., 
    195 N.J. 324
    , 340 (2008). Here, the evidence submitted at the pretrial hearing, which
    included the videotape and witness testimony, clearly showed Gaffney was
    under the stress of the fight when he made the statements and had no opportunity
    to deliberate or fabricate. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's
    alternative admissibility ruling.
    Defendant further argues that Gaffney's statements should have been
    excluded under N.J.R.E. 403(a). The Rule "mandates the exclusion of evidence
    that is otherwise admissible 'if its probative value is substantially outweighed
    by the risk of (a) undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury or
    (b) undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
    evidence.'" State v. Cole, 
    229 N.J. 430
    , 448 (2017) (quoting N.J.R.E 403). We
    see no basis to question the judge's balancing of the pertinent factors and finding
    that N.J.R.E. 403(a) did not warrant exclusion of the evidence.
    VIII.
    In Point VII, defendant argues the judge committed error by failing to
    provide a limiting instruction for Lima's testimony regarding the hearsay
    A-5473-17
    52
    statements Gaffney made during his encounter with defendant.              Because
    defendant did not raise this issue at trial, we again review under the plain error
    standard of review. See State v. Townsend, 
    186 N.J. 473
    , 498 (2006).
    In Scharf, the Court permitted the State to introduce statements made by
    the victim about her fear of the defendant. 225 N.J. at 572-73. The Court found
    these statements were "relevant to disputed, material factual issues about [the
    victim's] state of mind toward defendant, about her marital relationship, and
    about her likely conduct that were ultimately argued [at trial] where the defense
    was accidental death." Id. at 574-575. However, to ensure the evidence was
    used properly, the Court determined that a limiting instruction was necessary.
    Id. at 580.
    One of the hearsay statements deemed admissible in Scharf was the
    statement the victim made to a friend that she was "very afraid for her life" and
    "very afraid [the defendant] was going to kill her." Id. at 562. The Court stated
    "[a] limiting instruction is required here to guard against the risk that the jury
    will consider the victim's statements of fear as evidence of the defendant's intent
    or actions." Id. at 581 (citing Calleia, 
    206 N.J. at 292
    ). The Court explained
    "[s]uch state-of-mind testimony may properly be used only for evaluating the
    A-5473-17
    53
    victim's actions or the likelihood of him or her acting in a certain way"; and "the
    evidence may not be used as evidence of the defendant's actions or intent." 
    Ibid.
    Here, the statements that were admitted, "I'm done" and "Stop," were
    clearly admitted as evidence of Gaffney's state of mind and actions, namely, his
    desire to discontinue the fight with defendant. Unlike Scharf, there was no clear
    risk the jury could have considered these statements as evidence of defendant's
    "actions or intent." 
    Ibid.
     Thus, we conclude the judge's failure to provide a
    limiting instruction following Lima's testimony did not have the capacity to
    produce "an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.
    In any event, "the prejudicial effect of an omitted instruction must be
    evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances." Townsend, 
    186 N.J. at 499
     (quoting State v. Marshall, 
    123 N.J. 1
    , 145 (1991)). The evidence against
    defendant was significant. The jurors had the benefit of watching the damning
    surveillance videotape for themselves as well as hearing multiple witnesses'
    accounts of how the fight between Gaffney and defendant evolved. See Walker,
    203 N.J. at 90 (finding the effect of any error must be considered "in light 'of
    the overall strength of the State's case'" (quoting Chapland, 
    187 N.J. at 289
    )).
    A-5473-17
    54
    IX.
    In Point VIII, defendant argues the judge erred in denying his motion for
    a judgment of acquittal as the State did not "prove beyond a reasonable dou bt
    that defendant did not reasonably and honestly believe that it was immediately
    necessary for him to use deadly force to prevent Gaffney from inflicting death
    or serious bodily injury upon him." Defendant also argues the State "failed to
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant provoked the use of force
    against himself in the encounter, with the purpose of causing serious bodily
    injury or death to Gaffney" and "failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
    defendant had an opportunity to retreat in complete safety at the time that he
    resorted to the use of deadly force against Gaffney."
    At the conclusion of the State's case, defense counsel moved for a
    judgment of acquittal, arguing "no reasonable jury could conclude beyond a
    reasonable doubt that the State has disproven the claim of self-defense in this
    case." In denying the motion, the judge explained:
    Among the evidence that's significant is that the jurors
    may see this matter as a fist fight. The defendant,
    although he says he has a fractured nose and he had a
    small bone displaced in his wrist, suffered injuries that
    a reasonable juror might look at and say nothing
    different than an ordinary person would sustain in an
    ordinary fight and that from those injuries draw the
    A-5473-17
    55
    inference that at no time was the defendant facing
    serious bodily harm.
    There's also evidence . . . from the medical
    examiner that if it's accepted by a juror would have
    [defendant] giving as good as he got to Mr. Gaffney
    essentially. Mr. Gaffney reportedly had multiple facial
    injuries that came from blunt force trauma that was not
    the result of him hitting the sidewalk after he had been
    shot dead. Furthermore, the video in this case supports
    the fact that he did not fall face first onto the sidewalk
    because he fell on top of [defendant]. I think that's
    plain from the video. As such he would have been
    cushioned in his fall.
    ....
    The description of the defendant throughout the
    evening after the first encounter was that he was in a
    highly agitated state. Those are my words, not any
    witness' words. He was intoxicated. He was out of
    control. These are conclusions that an ordinary juror
    could reach. And they would reach these conclusions
    by watching the video, listening to the testimony of him
    ignoring the pleas of his newly pregnant wife to go
    home and others. If they accepted Mr. Lima's version
    of the events, the victim himself was telling the
    defendant to leave. The jurors may listen to the excuse
    offered by the defendant of wanting to pay his bill to
    avoid theft of services and to get his jacket as not being
    honestly made, and they could listen to that and find
    that that is a post hoc excuse being offered by the
    defendant and, therefore, reflective of his mental state
    and purpose at the time . . . . They may find that
    because the defendant is seen on the video towards the
    end standing in front of the door and gesturing with an
    arm, they may find that to be the defendant was
    pointing to Mr. Gaffney and essentially calling Mr.
    A-5473-17
    56
    Gaffney out after being abused by Mr. Gaffney and
    enraged. They may find he was so enraged he decided
    to kill Mr. Gaffney. That is a result that would be
    supported by the evidence.
    With regard to the issue of retreat, in addition to
    everything I just mentioned, they may find that when
    they look at the video . . . they see the defendant
    reaching for his weapon as he falls. They may find that
    he had decided at that point to kill Mr. Gaffney. That
    would be a point in time that was sooner than the point
    being advanced by counsel as the point that the jurors
    must consider, that being the point advanced by counsel
    is the point in time where Mr. Gaffney is standing over
    the defendant and repeatedly striking him.
    The jurors could find it was mutual combat, as I
    noted earlier . . . and although [defendant] was on the
    ground, he had an opportunity to escape, to roll over, to
    go away, to not go for his gun as an initial matter.
    These are things that a reasonable juror looking at the
    totality of the evidence could see and could reasonably
    find.
    The judge stated further that once the jurors "overcome the hurdle of self-
    defense, the issue of manslaughter and the sufficiency of the evidence available
    to sustain a conviction of manslaughter . . . is patent."
    Under Rule 3:18-1, a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal at the
    close of the State's case, "if the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction."
    The test is "whether, based on the entirety of the evidence and after giving the
    State the benefit of all its favorable testimony and all the favorable infere nces
    A-5473-17
    57
    drawn from that testimony, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt." State v. Williams, 
    218 N.J. 576
    , 594 (2014) (citing State v.
    Reyes, 
    50 N.J. 454
    , 458-59 (1967)).          The evidence may be "direct or
    circumstantial," Reyes, 
    50 N.J. at 459
    , and "[i]nferences need not be established
    beyond a reasonable doubt." Tindell, 
    417 N.J. Super. at 549
    . "We review the
    record de novo in assessing whether the State presented sufficient evidence to
    defeat an acquittal motion." State v. Dekowski, 
    218 N.J. 596
    , 608 (2014).
    Applying these principles, we conclude that based on the State's proofs, a
    reasonable jury could find that defendant did not act in self-defense and
    committed the crime of reckless manslaughter.
    "Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when . . . [i]t is committed
    recklessly . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). "Under the Code, exoneration on the
    basis of self-defense would be clearly inconsistent with a finding of
    manslaughter that a person recklessly killed his aggressor." Rodriguez, 195 N.J.
    at 172. However, under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2), the use of deadly force is not
    justifiable "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
    protect himself against death or serious bodily harm."          Deadly force is
    impermissible if "[t]he actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily
    harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or [t]he
    A-5473-17
    58
    actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
    safety by retreating." Ibid. at 171-72 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)).
    "Self-defense exonerates a person who kills in the reasonable belief that
    such action was necessary to prevent his or her death or serious injury, even
    though this belief was later proven mistaken." Id. at 172 (quoting State v. Kelly,
    
    97 N.J. 178
    , 198 (1984)). "Before resorting to deadly force, one must have both
    an objectively reasonable and an honest that is, sincere belief 'in the need to kill
    in self-defense.'" 
    Ibid.
     (quoting Kelly, 
    97 N.J. at 198-200
    ). "Based on the
    Code's own language, a person who kills in the honest and reasonable belief that
    the protection of his own life requires the use of deadly force does not kill
    recklessly." 
    Ibid.
    Thus, in order to overcome a self-defense claim, the State is required to
    prove that: 1) defendant's belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to
    save his own life or to avoid serious bodily injury was not honest or reasonable;
    or 2) although defendant's belief was honest and reasonable, defendant was the
    aggressor; or 3) although defendant's belief was honest and reasonable, and
    defendant was not the aggressor, defendant could have retreated in complete
    safety. See N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2).
    A-5473-17
    59
    The State's proofs included the surveillance videotape of the fight, from
    which a reasonable jury could find in and of itself proof beyond a reasonable
    doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense.15 The State's proofs also
    included the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, including Lima, from which a
    reasonable jury could conclude that defendant did not act in self-defense. As
    the judge pointed out, although defendant sustained injuries during the fight, a
    reasonable jury could find that these injuries were not life-threatening, but
    injuries typically sustained in a fistfight. While defendant argued that he did
    not punch or otherwise attack Gaffney, the videotape showed otherwise.
    Moreover, the medical examiner testified that Gaffney sustained injuries ot her
    than the bullet wounds. Based on the entirety of the evidence, we agree with
    the judge that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt the State disproved
    defendant's claim of self-defense and proved defendant was guilty of reckless
    manslaughter.
    X.
    In Point IX, defendant argues the cumulative effect of the trial errors
    undermined his rights to due process and a fair trial, warranting reversal of his
    15
    Our review of the surveillance videotape supports the State's position that
    Gaffney did not reach — or even attempt to reach — for defendant's gun.
    A-5473-17
    60
    conviction. "We have recognized in the past that even when an individual error
    or series of errors does not rise to reversible error, when considered in
    combination, their cumulative effect can cast sufficient doubt on a verdict to
    require reversal." State v. Jenewicz, 
    193 N.J. 440
    , 473 (2008). However, here,
    because we conclude there were no reversible errors either alone or combined,
    defendant's cumulative error argument must also fail.
    In Point IX, defendant also argues the judge erred in "overruling a defense
    objection" to the readback of his cross-examination only, in response to the
    jury's request for same. On the fourth day of deliberations, 16 the jury sent a note
    requesting a "read back of defendant's testimony while on the stand, specifically
    just the prosecutor's cross-examination part." Over the State's objection, defense
    counsel asked the judge to essentially read back defendant's entire testimony.
    In denying counsel's request, the judge stated:
    I'm going to deny the defendant's request for the
    following reasons. One, the question is specific and
    emphatic. The word "just" is underlined which to me
    indicates that the jurors have considered the testimony
    as a whole and have determined for whatever reason
    that they only want to hear the cross-examination. I
    understand the arguments of defense counsel.
    However, those arguments assume or presuppose that
    the jurors need to be reminded of what happened on
    direct. Here, as I said, from the phrasing of the specific
    16
    The jury returned its verdict on the fifth day of deliberations.
    A-5473-17
    61
    question itself, it appears to the court that they are
    mindful of it but for their own reasons wish only to hear
    cross-examination. I don't see that the interests of
    justice would be offended by answering their specific
    question and, therefore, I'm denying the request.
    "Jurors should not be required to watch or hear more testimony than they
    ask for." State v. Miller, 
    205 N.J. 109
    , 123 (2011) (citing State v. Wilson, 
    165 N.J. 657
    , 661 (2000)).
    [W]here a request is clearly circumscribed, the trial
    court has no obligation to compel jurors to hear
    testimony they have not asked for or to continue a read
    back after they have expressly indicated that they have
    heard enough. That is so even if one of the parties
    registers a request for a further read back.
    [Wilson, 
    165 N.J. at 661
     (citations omitted).]
    "Courts have broad discretion as to whether and how to conduct read-
    backs and playbacks." Miller, 
    205 N.J. at 122
    . Here, we discern no abuse of
    the judge's discretionary authority. The jury's request was clear and specific.
    Thus, the judge was under no obligation to read back defendant's direct
    examination in addition to his cross-examination, despite defense counsel's
    request.
    A-5473-17
    62
    XI.
    In Point X, defendant argues that because the mitigating factors
    substantially outweighed the aggravating factors, the judge should have
    downgraded his sentence to the range for a third-degree offense.
    We review sentences "in accordance with a deferential standard," State v.
    Fuentes, 
    217 N.J. 57
    , 70 (2014), and are mindful that we "should not 'substitute
    [our] judgment for those of our sentencing courts,'" State v. Cuff, 
    239 N.J. 321
    ,
    347 (2019) (quoting State v. Case, 
    220 N.J. 49
    , 65 (2014)). Thus, we will
    affirm the sentence unless 1) the sentencing guidelines
    were violated; 2) the aggravating and mitigating factors
    found by the sentencing court were not based upon
    competent and credible evidence in the record; or 3)
    "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the]
    case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to
    shock the judicial conscience."
    [Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 (alteration in original) (quoting
    State v. Roth, 
    95 N.J. 334
    , 364-65 (1984)).]
    At defendant's sentencing hearing, the judge found aggravating factor
    nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9) ("need for deterring . . . defendant and others from
    violating the law"), and mitigating factors three, seven, and eight, N.J.S.A.
    2C:44-1(b)(3) ("defendant acted under a strong provocation"); N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
    1(b)(7) ("defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity" );
    A-5473-17
    63
    N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(8) ("defendant's conduct was the result of circumstances
    unlikely to recur").17
    Although the judge found the mitigating factors "substantially
    outweigh[ed]" the sole aggravating factor, the judge "decline[d] to downgrade"
    defendant's sentence to the third-degree range. Citing N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2),
    17
    We reject defendant's contention that the judge erred in his evaluation and
    rejection of mitigating factors two, four, five, nine, ten, and eleven. As to factor
    two, N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(2) ("defendant did not contemplate that [his] conduct
    would cause or threaten serious harm"), the judge found it "inapplicab le"
    because the evidence showed "defendant knew he was using deadly force at the
    time he used it." As to factor four, N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(4) ("substantial grounds
    [exist] tending to excuse or justify the defendant's conduct, though failing to
    establish a defense"), the judge stated defendant "picked a fight" with Gaffney
    after the two had reconciled, and when defendant started "losing, he used his
    weapon without legal justification." Similarly, the judge rejected factor five,
    N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(5) (the victim "induced or facilitated" the commission of the
    crime), because defendant "reinstituted the dispute after reconciliation." As to
    factor nine, N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(9) ("[t]he character and attitude of the defendant
    indicate that [he] is unlikely to commit another offense"), despite the numerous
    letters submitted regarding defendant's good character, the judge, citing State v.
    O'Donnell, 
    117 N.J. 210
     (1980), found there was "a lack of true remorse" on
    defendant's part. As to factor ten, N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(10) (defendant would
    "respond affirmatively to probationary treatment"), the judge found this factor
    "inapplicable" as defendant was convicted of a second-degree crime which
    carried a presumption of imprisonment. Finally, as to factor eleven, N.J.S.A.
    2C:44-1(b)(11) (defendant's "imprisonment . . . would entail excessive
    hardship"), the judge found, that while defendant would suffer some hardship,
    he failed to show how such hardship was beyond those "common to all persons
    . . . subject to prolonged incarceration." As to factor six, N.J.S.A. 44-1(b)(6)
    (defendant would "compensate the victim" or "participate in a program of
    community service"), defendant conceded its inapplicability.
    A-5473-17
    64
    which permits a sentence one degree lower where "the interest of justice
    demands," the judge explained:
    In [State v.] Megargel, [
    143 N.J. 484
    , 501-502 (1996)],
    our Supreme Court held that in determining what is in
    the interest of justice, the defendant must come forward
    with compelling reasons that are, "[i]n addition to and
    separate from," the factors argued in mitigation . . . .
    There must be truly, extraordinary, and unanticipated
    circumstances to overcome the presumption of
    imprisonment.
    [D]efense counsel lists what are argued as compelling
    factors in . . . his submission . . . . I find that . . .
    counsel's points did not make compelling reasons.
    Instead, they served to highlight that defendant should
    have known better. As a police officer, he should not
    have drunk to excess, having [six] beers and two Jack
    Daniels in . . . the [little] time he was at the bar, and
    certainly he shouldn't have done it while he was armed.
    He should not have brushed his pregnant wife aside
    when she was begging him to leave and physically
    trying to direct him away. He should not have ignored
    the pleas of, literally, the entire bar who were telling
    him to go. He should not have persisted in picking a
    fight with a much larger and stronger man who he
    believed to be using illegal drugs. He should not have
    remained in an establishment where he believed patrons
    were using illegal drugs. Furthermore, counsel's
    recollection of events is not accurate, in the [c]ourt's
    estimation, when he says [defendant] was always
    retreating and never threw a punch. The video shows
    otherwise. There's nothing unique about [defendant] as
    a person. For example, this is not a case involving
    mental retardation or other similar, unique
    circumstance for the [c]ourt to consider. To put it
    A-5473-17
    65
    succinctly there are no compelling reasons to
    downgrade here.
    Sentencing a first- or second-degree offender to a sentence one degree
    lower is governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
    In cases of convictions for crimes of the first or
    second degree where the court is clearly convinced that
    the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the
    aggravating factors and where the interest of justice
    demands, the court may sentence the defendant to a
    term appropriate to a crime of one degree lower than
    that of the crime for which he was convicted.
    In Megargel, our Supreme Court observed that "the standard governing
    downgrading is high," and proceeded to provide guidance on when a defendant's
    first- or second-degree conviction should be downgraded pursuant to the
    statutory framework. 
    143 N.J. at 500
    . Specifically, the Court established a two-
    part test: 1) "[t]he court must be 'clearly convinced that the mitigating factors
    substantially outweigh the aggravating ones'"; and 2) "that the interest of justice
    demand[s] a downgraded sentence." 
    Id. at 496
     (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2)).
    The Court further explained that in applying this test, "the severity of the crime"
    is "the most . . . important factor . . . ." 
    Id.
     at 500 (citing State v. Hodge, 
    95 N.J. 369
    , 379 (1984)).
    The Court continued, "[i]n evaluating the severity of the crime, the trial
    court must consider the nature of and the relevant circumstances pertaining to
    A-5473-17
    66
    the offense," including if "[t]he surrounding circumstances" make the offense
    "very similar to a lower degree offense, thus suggesting that a downgraded
    sentence may be appropriate." 
    Id. at 500
    . Although trial courts may consider
    "facts personal to the defendant" including "a defendant's role in the incident to
    determine the need to deter him from further crimes and the corresponding need
    to protect the public from him," the focus should be the crime itself. 
    Id.
     at 501
    (citing State v. Jarbath, 
    114 N.J. 394
    , 407 (1989)). The Court explained "[t]he
    paramount reason we focus on the severity of the crime is to assure the
    protection of the public and the deterrence of others. The higher the degree of
    the crime, the greater the public need for protection and the more need for
    deterrence." 
    Id. at 500
    .
    Additionally, "[t]he decision to downgrade a defendant's sentence 'in the
    interest of justice' should be limited to those circumstances in which defendant
    can provide 'compelling' reasons for the downgrade." 
    Id. at 501-02
     (quoting
    State v. Jones, 
    197 N.J. Super. 604
    , 607 (App. Div. 1984)). "These reasons must
    be in addition to, and separate from, the 'mitigating factors which substantially
    outweigh the aggravating factors,' that the trial court finds applicable to a
    defendant under the first prong of [N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2)]." Id. at 502.
    A-5473-17
    67
    Here, the judge found no "compelling reasons" to sentence defendant in
    the third-degree range despite defendant's arguments to the contrary. Instead,
    based on the balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge
    sentenced defendant to the lower end of the second-degree range. See Case, 220
    N.J. at 64-65 ("[W]hen the mitigating factors preponderate, sentences will tend
    toward the lower end of the range, and when the aggravating factors
    preponderate, sentences will tend toward the higher end of the range." (quoting
    State v. Natale, 
    184 N.J. 458
    , 488 (2005))).
    Defendant's reliance on State v. L.V., 
    410 N.J. Super. 90
     (App. Div. 2009),
    to support his argument for a downgraded sentence is misplaced. In L.V., we
    determined that "the high standard governing downgrading [a sentence]" under
    N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2) was met. 
    Id. at 112
    . We held that "[t]he judge erred in
    refusing to sentence defendant as a third-degree offender," 
    id. at 113
    , for
    "second-degree aggravated assault and second-degree reckless manslaughter"
    stemming from her throwing her two newborn babies out the window at the
    direction of her abusive father, leading to the death of the first child and severe
    injuries to the second. 
    Id. at 93-96
    . The babies were conceived from her father's
    repeated and pervasive sexual molestation of defendant over a five-year period.
    A-5473-17
    68
    
    Id. at 93-96
    . The first child was born when defendant was sixteen years old and
    the second was born when defendant was eighteen years old. 
    Id. at 95-96
    .
    In L.V., the record revealed that the defendant was "a person of very
    limited intelligence, functioning at a level in school initially below a five-year-
    old child and by the time of the crimes at the level of a six-year-old child." 
    Id. at 112
    .    She had "a severe language disorder and severe deficits in
    comprehension and syntax" and suffered "from PTSD and Major Depressive
    Disorder." 
    Ibid.
     Further:
    The circumstances surrounding her behavior were
    extreme and severe. She had been raped by her father
    repeatedly for years, causing impairment of her
    judgment and decision-making ability.            She felt
    powerless toward her father and feared for her life and
    that of her mother. Her cognitive limitations impaired
    her ability to seek help with respect to the rapes and her
    pregnancies and affected her desire not to have her
    babies abused, and she was socially isolated by her
    abusive father. Her cultural and language barriers and
    her lack of assimilation into the community also
    prevented her from seeking help.
    [Id. at 112-13.]
    Clearly, those circumstances do not obtain here.
    In sum, because the judge's findings were supported by the record,
    comported with the sentencing guidelines, and do not shock the judicial
    conscience, we discern no abuse of the judge's sentencing discretion.
    A-5473-17
    69
    Affirmed.
    A-5473-17
    70