Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. R.T., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2011-04-28
Citations: 205 N.J. 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. R.T., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 493–517

Head Matter:
16 A.3d 365
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. R.T., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued January 18, 2011
Decided April 28, 2011.
Leslie-Ann M. Justus, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).
Michael J. Confusione, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The members of the Court being equally divided on whether the instruction on voluntary intoxication required a new trial (three members finding the error harmful, one finding it harmless, and two finding no error), the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
For affirmance—Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ALBIN— 3.
For concurrence in part/dissent in part—Chief Justice RABNER—1.
For• dissent—Justices RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—2.
Not participating—Judge STERN (temporarily assigned)—1.