State v. Heisler, 29 A.3d 320

Background

Defendant was convicted after a de novo trial in the Law Division of CDS-related offenses and drug paraphernalia possession; a passenger was also charged with offenses but received a conditional discharge.
The stop of defendant was challenged as unlawful; suppression was denied by the municipal court and affirmed on de novo review by the Law Division.
The State served a certified lab certificate with notice of intent to admit it, but did not provide underlying reports/data to the defense.
Defendant objected more than ten days after receipt of the certificate; the municipal court admitted the certificate and the Law Division affirmed this admission.
The trial included testimony from a police officer (Dapkins) who sought to testify about drug recognition; defense sought to require disclosure and limit testimony under discovery rules.
The court ultimately affirmed one conviction (drug paraphernalia possession) but reversed two CDS-related convictions due to the lab certificate’s improper admission and remanded for further proceedings on those offenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop valid under Williamson?	State contends reasonable suspicion existed for the stop due to signaling violation and nearby traffic.	Heisler argues no reasonable suspicion, and thus suppression should have been granted.	Stop valid; reasonable suspicion supported.
Admissibility of the lab certificate and production of the analyst	State argues 2C:35-19c requires only the certificate and NOI, not underlying reports.	Heisler argues supporting reports must be disclosed and analyst testimony provided; objection timely; confrontation rights apply.	Lab certificate admission without author testimony was error; ten-day objection runs after disclosure of supporting data; remand for live testimony and reevaluation.
Allowing Dapkins to testify as an expert	State asserted Dapkins's qualifications and did not plan to use him as a named DRE expert at trial.	State had previously stated it would not call him as an expert and failed to disclose expert report under R. 7:7-7b(ll).	Admission of Dapkins's testimony as expert affirmed; defense prejudice not shown; discretionary ruling sustained.
Constitutional challenge to 2C:35-19c and timeliness	Statute is constitutional and notices timing aligned with discovery and confrontation rights.	Timeliness and confrontation concerns violate the Sixth Amendment as construed post-Melendez-Diaz.	Court did not decide constitutional challenge; remanded for applicability and remaining record; leaves open questions that may be addressed on remand.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bridges, 131 N.J. 402 (1993) (interpretation of notice and demand provisions in 2C:35-19c)
State v. Miller, 170 N.J. 417 (2002) (burden shifting and confrontation concerns regarding lab certificates)
State v. Simbara, 175 N.J. 37 (2002) (confrontation rights and data disclosure related to certificates)
State v. Kent, 391 N.J. Super. 352 (2007) (right to confrontation against analyst in lab reports; timeliness matters)
State v. Berezansky, 386 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div. 2006) (right to confront lab analysts when data is requested)