State of New Jersey v. Michael Nunez, 91 A.3d 660

In 2009, Rashon Brown died from gunshot wounds; Michael Nunez was the alleged shooter.
Two days after the shooting, Searles named Nunez to police as the shooter while jailed on drug charges.
Defense investigator Harry Reubel interviewed Searles in November 2010 as part of defense work.
Searles later testified at trial, describing the shooting in detail consistent with his earlier statements.
The State called Reubel to testify about Searles’s statements, relying on defense investigation materials.
A jailhouse informant, Sampson, testified that Nunez confessed to him; Nunez did not testify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by permitting the defense investigator to testify about a prior consistent statement	State contends N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2) supports admissibility to rebut fabrication.	Nunez argues the testimony violated the attorney-client relationship and right to counsel by using defense materials.	Reversed; admitting defense investigator testimony violated counsel rights and warranted reversal.

State v. Atkins, 405 N.J. Super. 392 (App. Div. 2009) (defense materials used by State can breach right to counsel)
State v. Mingo, 77 N.J. 576 (1978) (confidential defense expert materials protected; State cannot rely on them)
State v. Williams, 80 N.J. 472 (1979) (reciprocal discovery and defense material handling; chilling effect on defense investigation)
State v. Spencer, 319 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div. 1999) (defense investigator notes; violation when used by State)
State v. Taplin, 230 N.J. Super. 95 (App. Div. 1998) (police use of mug shots and databases; potential prejudice)
State v. Nelson, 318 N.J. Super. 242 (App. Div. 1999) (plain error standards in evidentiary rulings)
Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (new trial if constitutional error contributed to verdict)
State v. Muhammad, 359 N.J. Super. 361 (App. Div. 2003) (prior consistent statement admissibility depends on motive and timing)