State of New Jersey in the Interest of A.B., 219 N.J. 542

A.B., then seventeen, was charged with offenses that could be adult first-degree aggravated sexual assault and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, involving his six-year-old cousin N.A.
N.A.’s home was the alleged crime scene; prosecutor investigators had photographed the home and removed a rug for forensic testing prior to defense inspection requests.
Defense sought to inspect the victim’s room and A.B.’s sleeping area to understand room dimensions and sightlines and to take photographs for defense use.
The family court granted a 30-minute inspection with a prosecutor’s investigator present, excluded A.B.’s parents, and allowed the victim’s family to be elsewhere during the visit.
The State opposed, citing privacy interests and the Victim’s Rights Amendment and CVBR; defense argued inspection was essential to trial preparation and understanding the scene.
The Appellate Division and this Court found the trial court’s balancing of interests within its discretion, affirming the inspection order and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery order was an abuse of discretion	State contends the order invaded privacy and exceeded discovery scope.	A.B. argues the inspection is necessary for a meaningful defense and to understand the scene.	No abuse of discretion; order balanced rights and limited intrusion.
Whether a home crime-scene inspection falls within automatic discovery	State asserts home not within prosecutor's control, thus not automatic discovery.	A.B. asserts need justifies intrusion to obtain relevant evidence.	Not automatic; A.B. must show justified need, which was satisfied with limited, conditioned access.
What standard governs intrusion into a crime victim’s home	State emphasizes heightened privacy interests and a substantial need showing.	A.B. emphasizes reasonable likelihood of relevant evidence from scene inspection.	Adopts a substantial but case-specific balancing approach; abuse-of-discretion review with time/place/manner restrictions.
Whether rights under the VRA and CVBR constrain such discovery	State argues privacy rights prohibit broad access and protect victims from intimidation.	A.B. contends rights can be harmonized and do not override fair-trial rights with proper safeguards.	Rights are harmonized; discovery permitted with privacy protections; not an impermissible intrusion.

State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249 (1992) (auto discovery broad; substantial need for intrusive requests)
State ex rel. W.C., 85 N.J. 218 (1981) (inherent power to order discovery; balance need vs witness harm)
Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard; rational explanation required)
Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard; policy considerations)
State v. Scoles, 214 N.J. 236 (2013) (open-file discovery; post-indictment fair-trial framework)
State v. Means, 191 N.J. 610 (2007) (victim concerns; balance of interests; context for privacy considerations)