State v. Fausto Camacho (072525), 218 N.J. 533

On April 27, 2009 a parked Audi with keys in the ignition was reported stolen; witnesses described the person who approached the Audi as having a beard. Defendant was later chased while driving the Audi, crashed, fled on foot, and was arrested; officers who pursued identified defendant as the driver though he no longer had a beard at trial.
Defendant was indicted for third-degree theft and second-degree eluding; at trial he did not testify and defense requested a Carter (no-adverse-inference) jury instruction, with defendant’s assent.
The trial court inadvertently omitted the requested Carter instruction from its charge; defense did not object after the instruction was given.
Jury convicted defendant of second-degree eluding and acquitted on the theft charge; defendant moved to set aside the verdict and for JNOV, both denied; he received a seven-year sentence.
The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that failure to give a requested Carter instruction is per se reversible constitutional error; the State sought review in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held the omission is constitutional error but not structural; it is a trial error subject to harmless-error review and, on this record, the omission was harmless. The Appellate Division judgment was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of the remaining weight-of-evidence claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Camacho)	Held
Whether a trial court’s failure to give a requested Carter (no-adverse-inference) instruction is a structural error requiring automatic reversal, or a trial error subject to harmless-error analysis	The omission is trial error, not structural; harmless-error review applies	The omission is of such constitutional magnitude that it requires automatic reversal	Held: It is trial error subject to harmless-error analysis (not structural)
Whether the trial court’s inadvertent omission was harmless on this record	The error was harmless given the court’s other instructions and overwhelming identification evidence	The omission deprived defendant of a fair trial and warrants reversal	Held: The omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction stands and case remanded to address other issues

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prosecutorial or court comment permitting adverse inference from silence is impermissible)
Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (trial judge must give no-adverse-inference instruction when requested)
Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (no-adverse-inference instruction does not coerce defendant; permissibility of giving such instruction addressed)
Fulminante v. Arizona, 499 U.S. 279 (distinction between trial errors and structural errors; harmless-error framework)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
United States v. Hasting[s], 461 U.S. 499 (harmlessness of prosecutor comments on silence may be assessed against full record and strength of evidence)
State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (New Jersey mandates Carter instruction on request)
State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141 (addressed harmlessness of Carter omission on specific record)