State v. J.D., 211 N.J. 344

Background

K.E., born 1990, stayed with C.D. and J.D. (C.D.’s husband) in Jersey City; J.D. later became godfather and K.E. and A.D. shared a bed at his home.
In August 2005, when K.E. was 15, she reported a swollen eye and later confided to her grandmother that J.D. had assaulted her and marked her neck.
K.E. alleged J.D. sexually assaulted her between ages 10–12 and that J.D. began having sexual intercourse with her when she was 12 or 13; an August 29-30 incident involved alleged intercourse with K.E. while she slept nearby.
At hospital, a physician found a superficial abrasion and collected swabs; DNA testing later showed sperm and a Y-STR profile potentially matching many males, including defendant.
Y-STR testing did not exclude J.D. as the source; defense argued alternative male source, but experts suggested only a probabilistic match; defendant’s own DNA testing was unavailable due to sample consumption.
Defendant was indicted on multiple counts; trial court limited evidence under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7 (Rape Shield Law); defendant was convicted of one count of sexual assault and one of endangering the welfare of a child.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7 barred admission of victim’s past sexual conduct	State contends K.E.’s prior conduct evidence is barred unless narrowly relevant; the statute protects privacy and limits defense intrusion.	J.D. argues the law should not bar evidence necessary to confront the reliability of DNA results and credibility of victim.	Statute balanced with constitutional confrontation; evidence must be relevant and necessary; restrictions upheld where proffer vague or non-specific.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the proposed evidence under 2C:14-7	State asserts enough procedural safeguards and that defendant offered only vague allegations.	J.D. claims the court denied a meaningful defense by precluding attempted impeachment.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; proffers were vague, lacked specificity, and did not show relevancy.
Whether the confrontation right requires admission of evidence under a broader standard than 2C:14-7	State maintains standard remains § 2C:14-7; no constitutional necessity to admit vague allegations.	J.D. contends the statutory framework should be overridden to allow confrontation if necessary to present a complete defense.	The court recognizes a balancing approach allowing admission when relevant and necessary, not solely reliant on 2C:14-7’s narrow test.
Whether DNA Y-STR evidence alone sufficed to convict without additional sexual conduct evidence	DNA correlation supports defendant as a possible source; corroboration unnecessary.	Defendant seeks additional context to cast doubt on semen source and credibility via other male sexual conduct.	Juries may weigh DNA limitations; additional unproven conduct evidence was not required for conviction.
Whether affidavits or certifications were required by 2C:14-7/a for in camera hearings	State notes procedures and that defendant failed to provide sufficient proffer.	J.D. argues statutory process was satisfied by motions; lack of affidavits should not bar in camera review.	Written affidavits were not mandated by statute; defendant needed a sufficient proffer, which was absent.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (N.J. 2010) (interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7; de novo review)
State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138 (N.J. 2001) (standard for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion)
State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469 (N.J. 1997) (evidentiary discretion and relevance)
State v. Rowe, 316 N.J. Super. 425 (N.J. Super. 1998) (necessity of details for 2C:14-7 hearings)
P.S., 202 N.J. 232 (N.J. 2010) (victim privacy and admissibility under 2C:14-7)
Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (N.J. 2003) (balance confrontation vs. victim privacy)
Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (N.J. 1991) (confrontation and compulsory process; weighing test)
Schnabel, 196 N.J. 116 (N.J. 2008) (balancing prior sexual conduct evidence; constitutional safeguards)