Opinion ID: 1898079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: -iv- other alleged errors

Text: Defendant challenges the New Jersey death-penalty statute as violating the eighth amendment to the federal constitution. We rejected that argument in Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 166-69, 182-90, 524 A. 2d 188, and State v. Biegenwald, 106 N.J. 13, 25-26, 524 A. 2d 130 (1987), and reaffirm those holdings today. Defendant also argues as grounds for reversal that (1) the trial court's decision to permit the State to use his prior convictions to impeach his credibility was an abuse of discretion; (2) two prospective jurors were erroneously excused for cause based on their views regarding the death penalty; (3) he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel; (4) the jury instructions permitting him to be convicted of purposeful or knowing murder were a constructive amendment to the indictment; (5) the penalty-phase jury instructions were constitutionally defective; (6) the jury's failure to find two of three proposed mitigating factors was contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (7) his sentence is disproportionate relative to the penalties imposed on other defendants convicted of similar crimes. Because we reverse defendant's conviction due to the Gerald violation, we need not discuss these points in detail. For purposes of retrial, however, we make the following observations.