62 A.3d 933
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Indictment: Gomez charged with second-degree aggravated assault for causing or risking serious bodily injury to the victim.
- Victim injury: victim suffered left orbital fracture and vision impairment from the assault.
- Defense request: defense sought an independent eye examination of the victim by Dr. Stabile with specific noninvasive tests.
- Trial court order: court ordered the victim to undergo a noninvasive eye examination at Dr. Stabile’s Tenafly office.
- State objection: State challenged the order as unauthorized, citing discovery limits and victim harassment concerns.
- Remand instruction: appellate court remands for further, guided consideration of the defense discovery request within the framework of due process and victim rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may order a nonparty to undergo a medical examination. | State argues no authority under rules to compel such examination. | Gomez claims necessary to secure defense evidence on injury. | Yes, but only with stringent limits and show of substantial need. |
| What showing is required to compel a victim’s independent examination. | State asserts minimal showing suffices under discovery rules. | Gomez contends a compelling/substantial need is required. | Compelling or substantial need required; must show lack of alternative discovery. |
| How Victim’s Rights Amendment and Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights affect the court’s power. | State emphasizes victim protections and inconveniences. | Gomez argues rights restrict any compelled examination. | Rights require balancing; court may order rarely if interests outweigh protections. |
| What protections and remedies govern the enforceability and scope of such an order. | State urges broad enforcement to ensure defense access while minimizing burden. | Gomez seeks to limit any relief to avoid harassment. | Order should minimize victim burden; enforcement potentially rests with State rather than victim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560 (1958) (inherent power to compel nonparty medical examination for due process)
- State ex rel. W.C., 85 N.J. 218 (1981) (lineup and identification procedures; balancing factors for witness burdens)
- State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249 (1992) (protective limits on child-witness examinations; compelling need balancing)
- State v. Michaels, 264 N.J. Super. 579 (App.Div. 1993) (limits on defense psychiatric examinations; credibility considerations)
- R.W., 104 N.J. 14 (1986) (competency and psychological evaluation of a witness; extraordinary measure)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (identification and evidentiary considerations in modern context)