State v. Brian Tier(077328) (Mercer County and Statewide), 159 A.3d 388

In March 2012 police found Brian Tier allegedly strangling his girlfriend; she gave a detailed statement and Tier was indicted for kidnapping and attempted murder.
Post-indictment Tier provided a defense witness list with three names but initially no identifiers or proffers; he later agreed to provide identifiers but refused to create written synopses.
The trial court ordered the defense to produce witness synopses and to create them if none existed, and to state whether each witness was a fact or character witness.
The Appellate Division summarily reversed the trial court’s order as inconsistent with Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C).
The State sought interlocutory review; the Supreme Court granted leave to address whether a defendant must produce written summaries of defense witnesses’ oral statements when no written statements exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C) requires a defendant to create written summaries of defense witnesses’ oral statements post-indictment	The State: the Rule should be read to require proffers in practice to prevent surprise, gamesmanship, and mid-trial delays; courts may order creation of summaries in aid of reciprocal discovery	Tier: the Rule only requires production of written statements if they already exist; forcing creation infringes defendant rights and work-product and strategic confidentiality	Held: No. The Rule requires production of written statements only "if any"—the defense need not create summaries that do not exist.
Whether a trial court may order a defendant to categorize defense witnesses (fact vs. character)	The State: categorization is reasonable to limit the State’s investigative burden and further discovery cooperation	Tier: categorization may force disclosure beyond Rule’s limits and interfere with strategy	Held: Yes. Trial courts may require designation of witnesses as fact or character witnesses; that part of the order was permissible.

State v. DiTolvo, 273 N.J. Super. 111 (Law Div. 1994) (Law Division ordered defendant to produce written summary of witness testimony)
State v. Williams, 80 N.J. 472 (N.J. 1979) (defendant not required to disclose inculpatory work-product documents not intended for trial)
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970) (discussion of defendant’s right to remain silent and to force the State to prove its case)
State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582 (N.J. 2016) (a discovery order based on mistaken understanding of law is subject to reversal)
Clymer v. Summit Bancorp, 171 N.J. 57 (N.J. 2002) (specific rule provisions control over general provisions)
State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85 (N.J. 1976) (court’s authority to make and interpret court rules)