[brief] The court instructed the jury on the elements of first-degree robbery in the context of the charge on own-conduct robbery, for which defendant was --- 3  In addition to the confusing jury charges, the indictment on the robbery offenses also contained the confusing, circular accusation that the co-defendants were guilty of robbery, in part, because they committed or threatened "to commit a crime of the first or second degree, that is, Robbery upon [...]" (Da6-Da7).  acquitted (26T135-23 to 26T137-21;Da10-Da11).  But the jury instructions (both oral and written) on accomplice liability for robbery omitted any instruction on the elements of first-degree robbery, despite the fact that these elements were the sole bases for the State's theory of the case (26T140-15 to 26T141-2;Da44).  "[T]he failure to charge the jury on an element of an offense is presumed to be prejudicial error, even in the absence of a request by defense counsel."  *State v. Afanador*, 151 N.J. 41, 56 (1997).  Moreover, both the robbery by own-conduct instructions and the accomplice liability for robbery instructions (oral and written) confusingly listed all three bases from N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a), for a finding of guilt on second-degree robbery (26T131-9 to 26T132-8;26T140-17 to 16T141-2;Da38-Da39;Da44), despite the fact that the State never alleged that defendant was guilty of second-degree robbery or identified which of the three possible factual bases from N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(1), (2), or (3), provided the basis for a conviction.  In addition to the fact that the jury was never instructed on the elements of first-degree robbery in the context of accomplice liability robbery, it was never asked on the verdict sheet whether he was guilty of the elements of that offense.  Question three on the verdict sheet asked the jury to decide if defendant was guilty of "Robbery" (Da10).  A subpart of question three, "3A," asked the jury whether "the defendant attempted to kill or purposely inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily injury," which would have established the offense as a first-degree crime (Da11).  But the verdict sheet directed the jury to answer question 3A only if it found defendant guilty of robbery (Da11).  Because the jury acquitted him of robbery, it never answered Question 3A (Da11).  Question four asked the jury to determine guilt "On the charge of Liability for the Conduct of Another for Robbery" (Da11).  The jury found defendant guilty on that charge (Da11).  Unlike question three, question four had no follow-up question relating to the elements of first-degree robbery (Da11).  The jury could not have found defendant guilty of being an accomplice to first-degree robbery because it was never asked to decide that question and it was never instructed on the elements of that offense.  Yet the court sentenced defendant to a ten-year term for accomplice liability first-degree robbery and the judgment of conviction shows a conviction for accomplice liability first-degree robbery (33T37-16 to 25;Da57).  This is not an instance where the conviction for accomplice liability for first-degree robbery can simply be molded to a second-degree offense.  This error, of failing to properly instruct the jury on the elements of first- and second-degree robbery in the context of the accomplice liability instructions, compounded the court's erroneous omission of a Whitaker instruction, as discussed, supra.