9 A.3d 172
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2010Background
- Defendant John Green was convicted of speeding (63 in a 45 zone) on Route 18 in East Brunswick after a de novo appeal.
- Officer Soke used a Stalker Lidar device, calibrated before use, to record a speed of 63 mph; the posted limit was 45 mph.
- Green sought discovery of multiple items (training manuals, device specifications, logs, repair history, speed surveys, witness list, disciplinary records) but was denied or limited by the municipal court.
- A disputed discovery order initially limited some materials and designated others as OPRA-producible; Green received some items but not all requested before trial.
- At trial, the court admitted some Lidar-related evidence and rejected certain DOT speed surveys as hearsay; Green was not allowed to present expert testimony without a proper foundation.
- On appeal, the Law Division affirmed the conviction but remanded for resolution of disputed scientific reliability and discovery issues; this Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery denial prejudiced the defense | Green argues discovery denial prejudiced trial. | Green contends prosecutors violated Rule 7:7-7 by withholding items. | Remand for new trial due to discovery errors |
| Sufficiency of speed-limit proof | State contends speed limit proved by officer testimony and records. | Green challenges DOT speed study and regulation as not properly admitted. | New trial required because exclusion of DOT records prejudiced defense |
| Scientific reliability of the Stalker Lidar | State relies on certification and calibration as proof of reliability. | Green argues device reliability not established by independent testing. | Device not proven scientifically reliable; remand to determine reliability |
| Defendant's right to testify as an expert | State did not need to receive defendant's expert report since no discovery was sought from defendant. | Green should be allowed to testify as an electronics expert. | New trial required due to need for a proper evidentiary basis and hearing under N.J.R.E. 104 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craig, 150 N.J. Super. 513 (App.Div. 1977) (speed-limit testimony can create rebuttable presumptions)
- In re Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detector System (Laser I), 314 N.J. Super. 211 (Law Div. 1996) (laser reliability scrutinized; general acceptance vs. device-specific reliability)
- In re Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detector System (Laser II), 314 N.J. Super. 233 (Law Div. 1998) (DOT testing supported reliability of laser detector)
- State v. Abeskaron, 326 N.J. Super. 110 (App.Div. 1999) (Laser III affirmance on reliability subject to restrictions)
- State v. Boyington, 153 N.J. Super. 252 (App.Div. 1977) (limits on judicial notice of scientific reliability; expert proof required)
- State v. Ford, 240 N.J. Super. 44 (App.Div. 1990) (discovery related to instrument manuals; use arrangements with prosecution)
- State v. Morgan, 393 N.J. Super. 411 (App.Div. 2007) (limits on presumptions about speed limits; weighing unchallenged testimony)
- In re Duran, 251 N.J. Super. 55 (App.Div. 1991) (public records admissibility and judicial notice)
- Wojtkowiak, 174 N.J. Super. 460 (App.Div. 1980) (requirements for training, calibration, and operator qualifications)