STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TATRONE R. WATERSÂ (12-12-1129, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2815-14T1

Defendant (age 17) convicted of first-degree murder, possession of a firearm for unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of a weapon, and aggravated assault after a shooting at a trailer park that killed the victim.
Co-defendant (Brock Gould) testified that defendant threatened to kill the victim and later that both he and defendant fired at the victim; co-defendant initially denied involvement to police and later pled guilty to a related weapon charge.
A key eyewitness (the driver/friend) equivocated at trial about who had a gun and whether defendant fired; on cross-examination he admitted co-defendant told him what to say to police, but the trial judge excluded testimony about that coaching as hearsay.
The jury instructions did not include passion/provocation manslaughter or self-defense sua sponte, and used the phrase "and/or" in accomplice-liability instructions.
Trial counsel did not request the lesser charges or self-defense instructions and did not object to the accomplice instruction; defendant appealed asserting plain error and challenged the exclusion of the coaching testimony.
Appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding (inter alia) plain error in failing to charge passion/provocation manslaughter and self-defense, ambiguity in the accomplice instruction, and erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence; sentence was vacated but the court did not reach full Miller analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge erred in failing to charge passion/provocation manslaughter sua sponte	No objection at trial; charge not required absent clear record support	Evidence (victim pulled a gun first; quick reaction) clearly supported passion/provocation manslaughter	Reversed: plain error — evidence clearly supported the objective and subjective elements of the offense
Whether judge erred in failing to charge self-defense sua sponte	No request; instruction unnecessary	Evidence provided a rational basis for self-defense (victim brandished a gun; defendant unable to retreat)	Reversed: plain error — sufficient evidence clearly indicated self-defense warranted instruction
Whether use of "and/or" in accomplice-liability charge created ambiguity	Instruction adequate; no contemporaneous objection	"And/or" allowed inconsistent verdicts by permitting jurors to convict on different underlying offenses	Reversed: plain error — "and/or" rendered the accomplice instruction ambiguous (per Gonzalez)
Whether exclusion of testimony that co-defendant told witness what to say was proper	Excluded as hearsay and inadmissible as proof of truth	Testimony was offered to impeach witness credibility, not to prove the truth of the coached statements	Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion — the evidence was admissible to show coaching/impeachment

State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66 (2016) (lesser-included offense charge required only where record clearly supports it)
State v. Robinson, 136 N.J. 476 (1994) (elements required for passion/provocation manslaughter)
State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402 (1990) (four elements of passion/provocation manslaughter)
State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 2016) (use of "and/or" in jury charge can create ambiguity and permit inconsistent verdicts)
State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364 (2012) (trial judge must sua sponte charge self-defense if evidence provides a rational basis)
State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138 (2002) (distinguishing hearsay vs. evidence offered for non-hearsay impeachment purposes)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile sentencing principles regarding life without parole and consideration of youth)