State v. Hyppolite, 198 A.3d 952

Background

March 29, 2017: Homicide of Terrel Smith; police interviewed witness "Michael Gregg," who later identified Shaquan Hyppolite as the shooter in a June 8 interview but had earlier told police (hours after the shooting) he did not see the shooter.
Hyppolite was arrested and a detention hearing was held on July 6, 2017; the State provided discovery but did not disclose Gregg's initial (exculpatory) statement before that hearing.
The trial court found probable cause and detained Hyppolite (presumption of detention for murder); defendant did not contest probable cause at the hearing.
After indictment, the State produced Gregg’s first statement plus other materials (statements from two other men, surveillance summary, communications-data warrant) that undercut Gregg’s account.
The trial court found the late disclosures were exculpatory and should have been produced earlier but denied reopening the detention hearing, concluding the withheld evidence was not material. The Supreme Court granted leave and reviewed the appropriate remedy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hyppolite)	Defendant's Argument (State/AG)	Held
Remedy for late nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence before a CJRA detention hearing	Any failure to disclose exculpatory evidence before the detention hearing requires reopening the hearing (and appropriate sanctions)	Late disclosure did not violate due process because the evidence was not material to detention; AG argued Hogan standard applies to grand juries, not detention hearings	Adopted a modified materiality standard: reopen the hearing if there is a "reasonable possibility" the result would have been different; remanded to reopen here
Proper materiality standard to apply to withheld evidence at detention hearings	Use automatic remedy / new hearing; lower bar for relief	Apply Brady/Bagley "reasonable probability" or Hogan (clear, directly exculpatory) standard	Rejected automatic rehearing and the higher Brady "reasonable probability" test; adopted "reasonable possibility" (lower than Bagley) for detention hearings
Burden of proof on motion to reopen detention hearing after late disclosure	Defendant should be able to secure reopening with modest showing	State must show nondisclosure was not material; no due process violation if not material	Placed burden on the State to show there is no reasonable possibility the withheld evidence would have changed the hearing outcome
Appropriate sanctions for willful or egregious discovery violations	Seek deterrent sanctions, including referrals to ethics boards	Release is not an appropriate general sanction; any sanction must balance public safety	Release is generally not an appropriate remedy; trial courts should refer willful/egregious prosecutorial misconduct to Office of Attorney Ethics after a hearing

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard: "reasonable probability" evidence would have changed outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor's broad duty to disclose evidence favorable to defense)
State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (limited disclosure rule for grand jury: "clearly exculpatory" directly negating guilt)
State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (background on CJRA discovery obligations at detention hearings)
State v. Ingram, 230 N.J. 190 (standard for showing detention by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Dickerson, 232 N.J. 2 (release is improper as a routine sanction for discovery violations)
State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233 (impeachment evidence governed by Brady/Bagley principles)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (materiality and post-trial Brady analysis)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (judicial commentary questioning Brady's phrasing and proposing "significant possibility" alternative)