State of New Jersey v. Jacob R. Gentry, 106 A.3d 552

Defendant Jacob R. Gentry was convicted Sept. 20, 2011 of first‑degree aggravated manslaughter and third‑degree endangering an injured victim; sentenced to 30 years with NERA.
Appeal raised claims of improper use of a co‑defendant’s police statement and confrontation rights, evidentiary rulings, and self‑defense instructions.
State theory: Haulmark and companions attacked Gentry; Gentry claimed self‑defense and that the brother and girlfriend participated.
Prosecution cross‑examined Gentry about a co‑defendant’s statement and the State’s summation implied the existence of evidence not admitted; defense sought to limit such references.
The trial court instructed self‑defense only as a defense to murder, not to aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter; this was challenged as plain error.
Court reversed and remanded for retrial on both counts, citing multiple trial errors including improper use of co‑defendant statements and flawed jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether co‑defendant statement usage violated confrontation rights	State contends proper to impeach defendant	Gentry asserts violation of Bruton/Crawford principles	Reversal for error; prejudicial and not harmless
Whether self‑defense instruction should have covered manslaughter offenses	State argues no duty to instruct on manslaughter	Gentry asserts self‑defense must negate aggravated and reckless manslaughter as well	Reversal; self‑defense required as complete justification for manslaughter offenses
Whether prosecutor’s use of co‑defendant’s statement affected fairness	State claims admissible as non‑testifying co‑defendant evidence	Gentry claims prejudice and improper inference from absent witness	Reversal; prejudicial error requiring retrial
Whether the overall trial errors justify remand	State seeks affirmance	Gentry seeks reversal on all counts	Reversal; remand for retrial on both counts

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (inadmissible co‑defendant confession against codefendant)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rights)
Haskell v. State, 100 N.J. 469 (1985) (confrontation/public‑policy concerns in co‑defendant statements)
Laboy v. State, 270 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 1994) (co‑defendant statements and confrontation considerations)
Weaver v. State, 219 N.J. 131 (2014) (confrontation and evidence inferences on absent witnesses)
Johnson v. State, 421 N.J. Super. 511 (App. Div. 2011) (improper use of absent witness statements; curative instructions)
Rucki v. State, 367 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 2004) (prejudicial impact of prosecutorial conduct on credibility)
State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 (1988) (trial court may tailor jury charges to evidence; use of evidentiary facts in charge)
State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 (1997) (judicial instruction context and tailoring for self‑defense concepts)
State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165 (2008) (self‑defense can justify killings including manslaughter when appropriate)
State v. O’Neil, 219 N.J. 598 (2014) (self‑defense applies to murder and manslaughter; misinstruction reversible)