State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518

Nash, a middle-school librarian, was convicted in 2002 of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault of J.B. and related charges, including endangering the welfare of a child and terroristic threats, after the State attacked Nash’s credibility by disputing the existence of a personal aide for J.B.
The State’s rebuttal relied on Principal Gregory’s testimony that J.B. was not assigned a personal aide, which undercut Nash’s defense that an aide accompanied J.B. throughout the day.
After trial, Nash produced sworn statements and civil certifications (2002 and 2004) indicating J.B. was assigned a full-time classroom aide who accompanied him, contradicting Gregory’s testimony.
The trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered evidence; Nash’s PCR petition raised ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered evidence claims.
The Appellate Division affirmed on ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct, but did not address the newly discovered evidence issue; the court later granted certification to review the newly discovered evidence claim.
The Court ultimately held that the undisclosed evidence of a full-time classroom aide, not disclosed to the jury, constitutes newly discovered evidence that likely would have changed the verdict, warranting a new trial on all charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim	Nash contends counsel failed to elicit exculpatory evidence and challenge Gregory’s testimony.	Nash argues trial counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.	No reversible deficiency; Strickland prejudice not reached.
Prosecutorial misconduct claim	Prosecutor knew or should have known about the aide and misled the jury.	Prosecutor did not withhold exculpatory information and acted in good faith.	No prosecutorial misconduct; no withholding of exculpatory information established.
Newly discovered evidence	Evidence showing J.B. was aided by a full-time classroom aide was newly discovered and could change the verdict.	The evidence was not discoverable earlier and would be cumulative or not likely to change the outcome.	Nash is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Remand and scope of new trial	New trial should address all charges given credibility impact.	Limitations not necessary; procedural posture preserved.	A new trial must be conducted on all charges.

State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (1981) (establishes Carter test for newly discovered evidence)
Ways v. State, 180 N.J. 171 (2004) (refines Carter prongs and materiality; probative impact on verdict)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383 (1998) (prosecution duty to disclose material impeachment evidence)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (2011) (deference to PCR factual findings; miscarriage of justice considerations)