State of New Jersey v. Kason D. Hockett, 129 A.3d 1116

Defendant Kason Hockett was tried for the 2008 fatal stabbing of Jason Sharpe; acquitted of murder but convicted of second-degree reckless manslaughter and sentenced to nine years with parole bar.
The State's only eyewitness to the stabbing was Martha Rush; her credibility was central because defendant claimed self-defense.
On cross-examination Rush testified she had been "clean" and had not used drugs since March 23, 2007.
Defense sought to introduce three recent photographs (taken days before trial) purporting to show Rush using drugs, to impeach her testimony; the photographs were authenticated at an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing by Dawanna Williams.
The trial judge excluded the photographs, reasoning (1) the authenticating witness lacked credibility, (2) the evidence was collateral/misleading under N.J.R.E. 403, and (3) the photographs appeared to have been procured for litigation (implying chicanery).
The Appellate Division reversed, finding each justification for exclusion erroneous and concluding the exclusion infringed Hockett’s confrontation/cross-examination rights; ordered a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether photographs were authenticated and admissible	Prosecution argued insufficient foundation and challenged witness credibility	Defense produced Williams to authenticate; argued "the pictures are the pictures" and they impeach Rush's testimony about sobriety	Court: Williams' testimony sufficed under N.J.R.E. 901; judge erred in excluding on authenticity grounds
Whether photos should be excluded under N.J.R.E. 403 (prejudice/confusion)	Admission would be misleading, unduly prejudicial, and a waste of time	Photos directly impeach Rush's volunteered claim of sobriety and are probative of credibility	Court: Probative value not substantially outweighed; exclusion under Rule 403 was an abuse of discretion
Whether photos are inadmissible because procured improperly or for litigation	Prosecutor suggested possible nefarious procurement and trial-purpose orchestration	Defense: even illicitly obtained evidence (absent Fourth Amendment bar) is admissible for defendant’s use; no evidence of illegality here	Court: Procurement suspicion irrelevant; evidence admissible even if privately obtained improperly; judge erred to exclude on this ground
Harmless error or requires reversal	State did not argue harmless error on appeal	Defense argued constitutional confrontation/cross-examination violation requiring new trial	Court: Error was not harmless; cross-examination right critical; reversal and new trial ordered

State v. Mays, 321 N.J. Super. 619 (App. Div.) (photograph authentication principles under N.J.R.E. 901)
State v. Joseph, 426 N.J. Super. 204 (App. Div.) (prima facie showing of authenticity for photographs)
State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4 (authentication need not be by photographer)
Tartaglia v. Paine Webber, Inc., 350 N.J. Super. 142 (Admissibility generally not affected by illegality of private-party procurement)
State v. Macri, 39 N.J. 250 (historical treatment of admissibility before exclusionary rule)
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (common-law rule on admissibility despite illegal procurement)
Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (private-party illegally obtained evidence admissible against parties other than the government)
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (prosecution may use evidence obtained via deception by law enforcement)
State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398 (exclusionary rule aims to deter unlawful police conduct)