STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NATASHA MALAVE(13-11-3357, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2408-15T2

Background

Natasha Malave pled guilty to fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon and was sentenced to one year of supervised probation on February 7, 2014.
After alleged probation noncompliance, Probation filed a violation of probation (VOP) based on missed appointments, failure to enroll/complete anger-management, unpaid fees, and failure to report a change of address.
Malave subpoenaed her probation file in preparation for the VOP hearing; the Probation Division produced records under a protective order that redacted confidential internal material and limited production to documents "relevant" to her contact with probation.
At the January 8, 2016 VOP hearing, Probation Officer Deron Bunton testified to six missed meetings (March 19, May 18, June 15, June 22, June 29, July 6, 2015) and unsuccessful attempts to locate Malave at two addresses; Malave admitted missing appointments and explained childcare and financial difficulties.
The trial judge credited Probation’s testimony, found Malave willfully and substantially violated probation, and imposed a 364-day county jail term with 224 days credit.
On appeal Malave argued the protective order was issued without a hearing, improperly delegated the court’s role in determining what parts of the file were discoverable, and that redactions violated her due process rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by issuing a protective order limiting production of probation file without a hearing	The State argued protective order properly limited disclosure of confidential internal probation records while producing relevant materials	Malave argued the court abdicated its duty by letting Probation decide what to redact, prejudicing her ability to defend at VOP	Court found no abuse of discretion: order balanced discovery with confidentiality and compelled production of relevant, redacted materials
Whether redactions/limited disclosure violated defendant's due process rights	State argued Malave failed to identify withheld items that would change the outcome	Malave argued redactions prevented her from showing she contacted Probation about childcare issues	Court held Malave did not show what was withheld or how it would affect the result; due process claim failed
Whether the State proved VOP by preponderance of the evidence and violations were willful/substantial	State argued clear proof of missed appointments, failure to enroll/pay, and failure to report address supported willful/substantial violation	Malave argued failures were non-willful and caused by childcare and financial hardship	Court affirmed: credited probation testimony; facts supported willful and substantial violations
Whether the judge improperly relied on rules/interpretation in issuing discovery/protective order	State asserted trial court properly applied discovery rules governing criminal practice and confidentiality	Malave argued the judge misapplied rules by delegating relevancy determinations	Court applied deferential review to protective order and no deference to rule interpretation; found no misapplication and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hernandez, 225 N.J. 451 (court reviews discovery orders for abuse of discretion; no deference to rule interpretation)
State ex rel. A.B., 219 N.J. 542 (discusses discovery and confidentiality principles)
State v. Lavoy, 259 N.J. Super. 594 (App. Div. 1992) (VOP is not a stage in a criminal prosecution but criminal rules govern discovery)
State v. Reyes, 207 N.J. Super. 126 (App. Div.) (standards for proving VOP and excusability)