¶1The members of the Court being equally divided on whether the instruction on voluntary intoxication required a new trial (three members finding the error harmful, one finding it harmless, and two finding no error), the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
¶2For affirmance—Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ALBIN— 3.
¶3For concurrence in part/dissent in part—Chief Justice RABNER—1.
¶4For• dissent—Justices RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—2.
¶5Not participating—Judge STERN (temporarily assigned)—1.