We are satisfied that the charge did not fully explain the essential elements of robbery. The Appellate Division correctly rejected this position. The State contends that by defining 'purposely' in connection with the theft element, the court adequately instructed the jury that the use of force or the infliction of injury must likewise have been done purposely. The State argued that the trial court's jury instruction sufficed to establish a culpability requirement.
Finally, we cannot accept the State's argument that any deficiencies in the trial court's charge were harmless.
