In State v. Finklea, 147 N.J. 211, 686 A.2d 322 (1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 837, 118 S. Ct. 110, 139 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1997), the New Jersey Supreme Court applied R. 3:16(b) and upheld a conviction based on a trial in absentia. There, defendant failed to appear for trial on the originally scheduled trial date. The trial court adjourned the trial twice to afford defense counsel an opportunity to produce defendant. Id. at 214, 686 A.2d 322. The trial was held on the second adjourned date, despite defendant's continued absence. Ibid. Defendant argued that he could not be tried in absentia because he had not received notice of the adjourned trial date. The Supreme Court rejected the argument. The Court in Finklea also refused to apply Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255, 113 S. Ct. 748, 122 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1993), which involved application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, the federal analogue to R. 3:16(b). There, the United States Supreme Court held that Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 does not authorize trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present when the trial begins. Crosby, supra, 506 U.S. at 262, 113 S. Ct. at 753, 122 L. Ed. 2d at 33. Unlike R. 3:16(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 by its terms does not include authorization for a trial in absentia under those circumstances. Thus, the Court in Finklea distinguished Crosby on that ground. 147 N.J. at 221-22, 686 A.2d 322.