2-24-09 State v. Angelo Grenci, Jr. (A-104-07)
Defendant’s trial in absentia on the superseding indictment did
not comply with Rule 3:16(b). Because defendant was never
arraigned on the superseding indictment and never
waived – in writing or orally on the record – his right to be
present at trial on that indictment, the trial should not have
proceeded in his absence. Therefore, no conviction arising from
any of the additional charges contained in the
superseding indictment can stand. In addition, the
trial court’s instructions to the jury directed a verdict on an
element of the burglary offense and thereby improperly relieved
the State of its constitutional burden of proving guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
