State v. Scoles
214 N.J. 236
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Defendant charged with endangering the welfare of a child based on email-transmitted child pornography.
- State refused to copy or let defense view the images, requiring inspection only at the prosecutor’s office.
- Trial court issued a Protective Order allowing viewing at a state facility, within 48 hours of inspection, with copies denied.
- Court balanced defendant’s Rule 3:13-3 discovery right against victims’ privacy and risk of dissemination.
- This Court granted leave to appeal to address consistency in discovery and protective orders in child-pornography prosecutions.
- The Court set forth a framework to safeguard evidence while ensuring meaningful access for defense, and remanded to reconsider the motion under the new principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order balancing discovery and victim risk is required to be uniform | State: adopt safeguards similar to Adam Walsh Act to restrict copying. | Scoles: protective order should allow copies and broader defense access. | Remanded; protective order vacated; framework established for balancing access and safeguards. |
| Whether the Adam Walsh Act provides the exclusive framework for handling child-pornography discovery | State: federal Act should govern access via viewing at government facility. | Scoles: state should reproduce materials with safeguards, not foreclose copies. | Not controlling; New Jersey may craft own framework with safeguards; Adam Walsh Act not binding here. |
| What procedural steps should courts use to assess defense access to computer images | State: safeguards limit dissemination and copying. | Scoles: needs to access copies and experts to prepare defense. | Court approves a structured, stepwise process and defined protective-order terms for future cases. |
| Whether defense experts’ access to images is permissible under Sixth Amendment safeguards | State: restrict expert access to prevent dissemination. | Experts should assist defense; access is essential to effective representation. | Defense expert access permitted under protective order with stringent controls; not treated as dissemination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (republication harms child victims; heightened concern for safeguarding.)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (republication of child pornography causes further harm to victims.)
- State ex rel. W.C. v. Walls, 85 N.J. 218, 85 N.J. 218 (1981) (open-file discovery and balance of interests in criminal trials.)
- State v. Cook, 43 N.J. 560, 43 N.J. 560 (1965) (discovery as a tool to promote truth in criminal trials.)
- State v. Broom-Smith, 406 N.J. Super. 228, 406 N.J. Super. 228 (2010) (open-file discovery framework and protective-order considerations.)
- State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (Sixth Amendment and access to counsel and experts in defense.)
- Cohen v. State, 431 N.J. Super. 256, 431 N.J. Super. 256 (2009) (protective-order framework for child-pornography discovery matters.)