State v. Julius Smith(073059), 128 A.3d 1077

Background

On July 3, 2009 Jayne Gourgiotis was robbed at gunpoint; she briefly (≈4 seconds) viewed the assailant and later identified Julius Smith from a photobook and by a car seen after the incident.
Police stopped Smith in an Oldsmobile Aurora hours later; no stolen property or weapons were found in the car; Smith was later arrested and found with heroin unrelated to the robbery.
Six weeks after the robbery State Police arrested Stebbin Drew in a different stolen vehicle and recovered Gourgiotis’s cell phone; that fact was not disclosed to local prosecutors or defense until midtrial (November 2010).
The State disclosed Drew’s prior arrest and ultimately produced a 2009 arrest photo and a stipulation that the victim’s phone was found in another man’s possession; defense counsel sought a mistrial twice and alternatively requested time to investigate; the trial court denied mistrial and continued the short, four‑day trial.
The jury convicted Smith of armed robbery and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose; Smith appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial or a continuance to investigate the newly disclosed evidence.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed Smith’s robbery and firearm convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding denial of a mistrial was an abuse of discretion given the materiality of the late evidence, inability to investigate midtrial, and the identification‑dependent nature of the State’s case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a mistrial/continuance after midtrial disclosure of a third‑party recovery (victim’s phone) was an abuse of discretion	Late disclosure was addressed adequately by court actions (recall witness, stipulation, photo); no manifest injustice	Late disclosure was material to third‑party guilt, prevented meaningful investigation, and undermined identification evidence; mistrial or continuance necessary	Reversed: denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion; new trial ordered for robbery and related firearm count
Whether defendant waived the mistrial claim by not insisting after court’s curative measures	Defense counsel’s conduct amounted to waiver or acquiescence	Counsel made two explicit mistrial motions and did not withdraw them; no waiver	No waiver; claim preserved
Whether Carter newly‑discovered‑evidence test governs here	State: evidence was explored at trial and presented to jury, so Carter standard inapplicable	Defendant: Carter supports new trial analysis for material, previously undiscoverable evidence	Carter does not control because evidence was disclosed midtrial (not post‑trial) and jury heard about discovery; different analysis applied
Whether curative measures (recall, stipulation, cross‑examination) adequately protected due process	Curative steps preserved confrontation/compulsory process and avoided mistrial	Curative steps were insufficient because they precluded meaningful pretrial‑style investigation in a short trial	Curative measures insufficient under these facts given materiality and weak identification; mistrial warranted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (newly discovered evidence test for post‑trial relief)
State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394 (appellate review standard for mistrial abuse of discretion)
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (mistrial only to prevent obvious failure of justice)
State v. Allah, 170 N.J. 269 (consider unique circumstances and alternatives to mistrial)
State v. Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112 (cross‑racial identification warrants careful scrutiny)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (identification evidence reliability framework)
Garron v. State, 177 N.J. 147 (constitutional right to present complete defense)
Budis v. State, 125 N.J. 519 (confrontation and compulsory process discussion)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (factors affecting reliability of eyewitness ID)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (opportunity to view affects ID reliability)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (limits on compulsory process for fair administration of justice)