In State v. Hauser, 147 N.J. Super. 221, 371 A.2d 89 (App.Div.) certif. denied, 75 N.J. 27, 379 A.2d 25 (1977), the defendants had been convicted of both breaking and entry with intent to steal narcotics, and larceny of those narcotics. The trial court concluded there had been no proof of an intention to steal narcotics and thus it set aside the conviction. On appeal by the State, this court agreed with the trial court's finding that there had been no proof of an intent to steal narcotics. However, it also agreed with the State's claim that there had been ample proof of breaking and entry and larceny (albeit not larceny of narcotics) and that the jury's verdict necessarily included findings that all elements of the lesser included offenses (breaking and entry and larceny generally) had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court should not have set aside the guilty verdict in its entirety, but rather should have reduced the conviction to the lesser included offenses: . . . Where a conviction is set aside because of a defect in the proofs or because all of the elements of the offense charged have not been established, . . . this court has the power to enter a judgment of conviction for a lesser included offense where the jury verdict, of necessity, constitutes a finding that all the elements of a lesser included offense have been properly established and no prejudice to the defendant will result. . . . The Court noted that the principle it set out "applies even though the jury was not instructed on the lesser included offense." Hauser, supra, 147 N.J. Super. at 228, 371 A.2d 89.