State v. Eugene C. Baum(073056), 129 A.3d 1044

On April 20, 2006, Eugene Baum struck and killed two teens while driving; his BAC at the time was .327–.377 and tests showed Librium in his blood.
Baum admitted alcoholism, had taken Paxil the night before and Librium that morning (which he knew would intensify intoxication), and drank alcohol before driving.
Defense presented experts who diagnosed chronic alcoholism and testified Baum’s drinking was "automatic" or involuntary; State expert testified drinking is conscious, goal-directed behavior.
At charge conference defense sought separate, distinct jury instructions on diminished capacity (mental disease or defect) and self‑induced intoxication; the trial judge gave both instructions and the jury convicted Baum of two counts of first‑degree aggravated manslaughter and two counts of second‑degree death by auto.
Trial court instructed on diminished capacity (Model Charge), and then instructed on self‑induced intoxication (statutory definition); it also cautioned the jury that incapacity due to self‑induced intoxication cannot be treated as a mental disease or defect.
Appellate Division affirmed convictions (remanded for resentencing); New Jersey Supreme Court granted limited certification to decide whether the jury charge impermissibly blended self‑induced intoxication with diminished capacity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury charge blended self‑induced intoxication and diminished capacity, negating Baum’s diminished capacity defense	Charge, read as a whole, accurately stated the law and clearly distinguished the two doctrines	Instruction sequence and caveat on self‑induced intoxication effectively nullified diminished capacity where intoxication was involuntary due to alcoholism/depression	The charge did not blend the doctrines; it accurately stated law and preserved Baum’s diminished capacity theory

State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (jury charges essential to fair trial)
State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281 (trial court duty to explain law to jury)
State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534 (erroneous instructions presumed prejudicial)
State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417 (reversible error for erroneous material jury instructions)
State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409 (court’s duty to deliver accurate instructions; parties not entitled to exact wording)
State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9 (harmless‑error standard for challenged jury instructions)
State v. Jackmon, 305 N.J. Super. 274 (test whether charge as whole is misleading)
State v. Sette, 259 N.J. Super. 156 (same)
State v. Rivera, 205 N.J. 472 (mental disease/defect may negate mens rea)
State v. Delibero, 149 N.J. 90 (diminished capacity is about presence/absence of an element)
State v. Breakiron, 108 N.J. 591 (purpose of diminished‑capacity evidence under the Code)
State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (standards for diminished capacity instruction)
State v. Kotter, 271 N.J. Super. 214 (trial court must give diminished capacity charge when evidence presented)
State v. Juinta, 224 N.J. Super. 711 (intoxication evidence to disprove purposeful or knowing conduct)
State v. Warren, 104 N.J. 571 (self‑induced intoxication immaterial to recklessness)
State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123 (intoxication and recklessness)
State v. Ross, 218 N.J. 130 (presumption that juries follow court’s instructions)