State v. Robert J. Stein(074466)
139 A.3d 1174
| N.J. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 15, 2008 Robert Stein was involved in a car crash in Wayne Township, air bags deployed, and officers observed signs consistent with intoxication; two breath tests showed BACs of .17 and .18.
- Defense requested discovery from the municipal prosecutor (two letters): (1) names/identifying information of all officers with relevant information (including officers from neighboring Pequannock) and (2) any video/audio recordings (vehicle dashcams, station surveillance, Breathalyzer recordings, 911/dispatch).
- Municipal prosecutor told defense (pretrial and at trial) that no videotapes existed and did not supply Pequannock officers’ names; defense did not meaningfully press the municipal court for enforcement of disclosure.
- Defendant convicted in municipal court of DWI and careless driving; Law Division (trial de novo) affirmed convictions and ruled the State had no obligation to produce the Pequannock officers’ names or videotapes. Appellate Division affirmed. Supreme Court granted limited certification on discoverability issues.
- Supreme Court held: (a) Rule 7:7-7(b)(7) requires disclosure of names of officers from adjoining jurisdictions if the prosecutor knows they have relevant information, but defendant waived the claim by not seeking municipal-court enforcement; (b) Rule 7:7-7(b)(6) requires disclosure of relevant video/sound recordings in the State’s possession or control if they existed at the time of the request — remand to Law Division to determine whether such recordings existed and, if withheld, to fashion an appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | State / Plaintiff Argument | Stein / Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the municipal prosecutor had to disclose names of officers from adjoining jurisdiction (Pequannock) | No duty to disclose names of out-of-town officers; issue not preserved below so should not be reached | Names of first-responding officers were relevant and discoverable under Rule 7:7-7(b)(7) | Disclosure required by rule, but claim waived because defendant did not seek relief under Rule 7:7-7(j) in municipal court |
| Whether the prosecutor had to disclose video/audio recordings (dashcam, station, Breathalyzer, transport) | Either no recordings existed or, even if they did, their absence would not have changed the outcome; State had no obligation to produce such tapes | Any recordings of appearance/field tests/Breathalyzer are relevant and must be produced under Rule 7:7-7(b)(6) | Record unclear whether recordings existed at time of request; recordings are discoverable if they existed — remand to determine existence and, if withheld, permit appropriate remedies |
| Standard of review for municipal discovery rulings | Trial- and Appellate-court rulings should be upheld absent abuse of discretion | N/A | Discovery rulings get deference for factual discretion, but no deference when based on mistaken understanding of law; Supreme Court interprets Rule 7:7-7 de novo |
| Scope of Rule 7:7-7 compared to Brady | Rule is broader than Brady; State need not provide items absent relevance or custody/control | Rule 7:7-7 requires broad municipal discovery including materials beyond constitutional Brady obligations | Rule 7:7-7 provides liberal, broad discovery in municipal DWI cases and encompasses names and recordings relevant to defense; broader than Brady |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scoles, 214 N.J. 236 (2013) (criminal open-file and broad discovery principles)
- State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475 (1999) (procedural protections shared by criminal and municipal DWI proceedings)
- State v. Darby, 174 N.J. 509 (2002) (relevancy principle under N.J. evidence law)
- State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J. Super. 530 (App. Div. 2000) (description of HGN and sobriety-test indicators)
- State v. Mustaro, 411 N.J. Super. 91 (App. Div. 2009) (Rule 7:7-7(b)(6) includes videotapes as discoverable material)
- State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2000) (discovery appropriate when it will lead to relevant information)
- State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420 (1976) (disclosure of material affecting credibility of State’s witnesses)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (constitutional rule for disclosure of material favorable evidence)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (no deference to discovery ruling based on legal error)
- Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66 (1984) (radio-frequency interference can affect Breathalyzer readings)