State v. Rivera, 16 A.3d 352

Defendant Rivera murdered his estranged wife Ana in 2004 and mutilated her remains; DNA linked Rivera to the crime.
Defendant did not raise diminished capacity as a defense at trial and did not request a jury instruction on diminished capacity.
Dr. Latimer testified Rivera was insane at the time of the murder (brief psychotic disorder) but did not opine on diminished capacity; the DSM-IV-TR definition used by Latimer conflicted with the temporal requirements of a brief psychotic disorder.
The State presented Dr. Gilman, who testified Rivera knew what he was doing and understood the wrongfulness of his acts; he disagreed with Latimer's diagnosis.
The trial court charged the jury on insanity but not on diminished capacity; the jury found Rivera guilty of first-degree murder and desecration of remains.
Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the failure to sua sponte instruct on diminished capacity was error but not plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on diminished capacity	State contends evidence did not clearly warrant the charge.	Rivera argues duty should have existed and a new trial should follow.	Duty not triggered; no plain error.
Relation between insanity and diminished capacity for jury instructions	Evidence focused on insanity; diminished capacity overlaps but was not clearly indicated.	Diminished capacity should have been charged when insanity evidence did not fully negate state of mind.	No requirement to charge diminished capacity sua sponte.
Whether the record clearly indicated or warranted a diminished capacity instruction	Latimer's testimony could support diminished capacity.	Record lacked evidence to support diminished capacity.	Record did not clearly indicate; instruction not warranted.
Standard for reviewing unrequested jury instructions (plain error vs non-plain error)	Errors in jury instruction are reversible as plain error if not charged.	Harmless error standard applies when not plainly obvious.	Appellate standard aligned; no plain error found.

State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73 (2010) (duty to instruct on defense sua sponte only when clearly indicated by evidence)
State v. Denofa, 187 N.J. 24 (2006) (jurisdictional instructions; sua sponte duties tied to clear indicia)
State v. Robinson, 136 N.J. 476 (1994) (limitations on sua sponte lesser-included offenses)
State v. Choice, 98 N.J. 295 (1985) (duty to charge only when facts clearly indicate appropriateness)
State v. Thomas, 187 N.J. 119 (2006) (principle: trial court need not scour record for unrequested charges)
State v. Reyes, 140 N.J. 344 (1995) (burden allocation when diminished capacity pleaded)
State v. Delibero, 149 N.J. 90 (1997) (insanity burden on defendant; diminished capacity considerations)
State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525 (1995) (diminished capacity interplay with state’s proof of mens rea)