STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DOMINIQUE T. MOORE(W-2017-000378-1303, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
164 A.3d 428
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Dominique T. Moore was charged with first‑degree murder and related firearm offenses after a multi‑year investigation; MCPO moved for pretrial detention.
- MCPO provided extensive discovery (complaint‑warrant, affidavit of probable cause, witness statements, videos, PSA, etc.) but only a blank PLEIR; MCPO had instructed local police not to complete PLEIRs.
- Defendant moved to compel production of a completed Preliminary Law Enforcement Incident Report (PLEIR); the trial court granted the motion relying on State v. Robinson.
- MCPO obtained emergent review; the Supreme Court directed expedited handling and remanded to this Court for leave to appeal; trial court nonetheless ordered detention (not appealed).
- On appeal, MCPO argued Rule 3:4‑2(c)(1), the Attorney General Directive, and Robinson do not require preparation or production of a PLEIR; amici (OPD, ACLU) argued the PLEIR should be produced to ensure fair detention hearings.
- The Appellate Division, following Robinson, held that amended Rule 3:4‑2(c)(1)(B) does not obligate law enforcement to prepare a PLEIR or require prosecutors to produce one if none exists, and reversed the trial court s compulsion order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MCPO) | Defendant's Argument (Moore / OPD/ACLU) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 3:4‑2(c)(1)(B) requires law enforcement to prepare a PLEIR | Rule text does not mandate creation; discovery provided satisfied Rule | The Rule's history and the word "available" show drafters intended PLEIR creation and production | Rule does not require officers to prepare a PLEIR; production is not mandatory if none exists |
| Whether the AG Directive mandates PLEIR preparation/production | Directive merely encourages PLEIR use; it is not mandatory and contains a non‑enforceability clause | Directive manifests AG intent that PLEIRs be provided to prosecutors and courts; MCPO s refusal is "game playing" | Directive does not compel creation/production of PLEIRs; not enforceable to mandate production |
| Whether judicial estoppel prevents MCPO from asserting PLEIR production is discretionary | MCPO says prior statements did not bind State to assert mandatory production; no clear inconsistent positions in Robinson | Trial court judicially estopped MCPO based on prior representations and past practice | Judicial estoppel was improper here; State may argue production is discretionary |
| Whether refusing to prepare PLEIRs affects prosecutors' discovery obligations or detention hearing fairness | MCPO: other provided reports make PLEIR redundant; Rule still requires disclosure of relevant statements/reports | OPD/ACLU: PLEIR functions as a roadmap/table of contents; nondisclosure undermines fairness | Holding does not reduce discovery obligations under Rule; Court did not rule on broader practical impacts of blanket non‑completion orders |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 448 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div.) (interpreting PLEIR and advising disclosure principles at detention hearings)
- State v. Hernandez, 225 N.J. 451 (N.J. 2016) (deference standard for trial court discovery orders)
- State ex rel. A.B., 219 N.J. 542 (N.J. 2014) (standards for appellate review of discovery rulings)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2011) (appellate review limits for factual and legal errors)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning authority cited in background materials)