[brief] Here, the trial court violated [...]’s right to presence and counsel and, at the same time, deprived the jury of a critical defense exhibit during deliberations.  On the sixth day of trial -- after summations and the final jury charge had been given the prior trial day but before the jury had begun deliberating -- the judge opened court by noting that all of the jurors were present but that the “attorneys are not here, the defendant is not here. ”  (6T 3-1 to 21)  The judge at first stated that “nothing else” was going to happen and that he was trying to “streamline this one” while the attorneys attended other business.  (6T 4-1 to 7)  However, the judge then announced that he was going to “give you all of the evidence” for deliberations and began reading off the exhibit numbers.  (6T 4-8 to 5-24)  The judge read all of the relevant State exhibits (except for previously agreed-upon exhibits that were excluded due to biohazardous material) and most of the defense exhibits; however, the judge omitted D-11, though he read D-1 through D-10, and D-12 and D-13.  (6T 5-6 to 24)  D-11 was a court document memorializing [...]’s conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon and his five-year sentence, which was admitted into evidence by the defense during his cross-examination.  (2T 120-6 to 122-15)  After reading the exhibits, the judge administered a few additional instructions to the jury -- still outside the presence of [...] and his counsel.  (6T 6-1 to 8-10)  For example, the judge provided supplemental instructions regarding how to submit jury questions and the verdict sheet, which the court reiterated, “[Y]ou all unanimously would have to agree on”; the judge also gave instructions to the non-deliberating jurors.  (6T 6-1 to 8-4)  Finally, the judge dismissed the jury to begin deliberations.  (6T 8-11 to 21)  The court’s submission of evidence and additional jury instructions -- both outside [...] and his counsel’s presence -- was extremely improper and denied him a fair trial.  D-11, which the court evidently failed to submit to the jury, was a critical part of [...]’s defense because it showed in black and white the favorable outcome [...] received -- the lowest possible sentence -- after he informed against [...].  But because the court submitted the exhibits to the jury without [...] or his counsel present, [...] was unable to raise an objection to the missing exhibit.  The apparent exclusion of that critical exhibit may have led the jury to unfairly de-emphasize that defense argument and improperly credit [...]’s claims more than they otherwise might have.  Cf. State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119, 134 (2008) (prohibiting juries from playing video statements in the deliberation room because “[t]he danger posed is that the jury may unfairly emphasize [the victim’s] videotaped statements over other testimony presented at trial”).  In addition, the court’s ex-parte instructions prevented [...] and his counsel from evaluating in real time whether their tone and tenor had the potential to “generate unintended and misleading impressions of the judge’s subjective personal views. ”  Basit, 378 N.J. Super. at 134 (quoting U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. at 460-61).  In sum, the court’s submission of evidence and supplemental jury instructions were both stages at which [...]’s substantial rights “may” have been affected and which were substantially related to his defense, and therefore they required his presence and the assistance of counsel.  *Dangcil*, 248 N.J. at 135; *A.R.*, 213 N.J. at 557-58.  Because he suffered actual prejudice from the missing defense exhibit, reversal is required.  **POINT IV**