State v. Samander S. Dabas (069498), 215 N.J. 114

Dabas was indicted for murder and leaving the scene of a fatal crash; two-hour pre-interview notes by Investigator Dando were in the prosecutor’s file but not disclosed.
Dando destroyed the handwritten pre-interview notes more than a year after indictment, replacing them with a typewritten report incorporating the notes.
Post-indictment discovery Rule 3:13-3 obliged automatic discovery of statements memorialized in police notes; notes were not provided to the defense.
At trial, the State used Dando’s account of the pre-interview and the taped statement to prove guilt; the defense sought an adverse-inference instruction for spoliation.
Appellate Division reversed murder conviction for denial of the adverse-inference charge; Supreme Court granted certification to address the issue.
Court held there was a post-indictment discovery violation and failure to preserve notes; remanded for a new trial with adverse-inference instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated post-indictment discovery by withholding notes	Dabas contends discovery rule applied; notes were discoverable	State’s destruction violated Rule 3:13-3 and duty to disclose	Yes; post-indictment discovery violation found
Whether an adverse-inference instruction was proper	No sanction required; notes destroyed before trial is dicta	Adverse inference justified to balance justice	Yes; trial court abused by not giving adverse-inference charge
Retroactivity of W.B. note-retention rule to post-indictment cases	W.B. should apply prospectively; no retroactivity	W.B. should apply retroactively to ensure fairness	Court declined retroactivity; decision grounded in post-indictment Rule 3:13-3
Impact of destruction on right to test statements and juror credibility	Notes could have aided defense; credibility of Dando’s testimony affected	Evidence already multifaceted; trial adequate	Destruction undermines integrity; prejudicial impact supported new trial

State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533 (2004) (disapproved routine destruction of contemporaneous notes; prompted rule reforms)
State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338 (2005) (disapproved destruction of interview notes; noted dicta in dissents)
State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011) (notes must be preserved pre- and post-indictment; adverse-inference possible)
Marshall, 123 N.J. 1 (1991) (severe sanctions for nondisclosure of interview notes)
Zenquis, 251 N.J. Super. 358 (1991) (approved adverse-inference-like concept for destroyed notes)