State v. Washington, 180 A.3d 1143

Background

Defendant Brandon M. Washington was indicted for two counts of attempted murder arising from a February 16, 2017 shooting; eyeglasses found at the scene were submitted for DNA testing.
The Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office (BCPO) submitted evidence to the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) Central Regional Lab; a draft DNA report was prepared July 25 but did not complete technical/administrative review until November 8 and was emailed to BCPO on November 16, 2017.
BCPO disclosed the finalized report to defense counsel the day it received it (Nov. 16). Trial was scheduled to begin Nov. 28; defendant moved to exclude the DNA evidence and the State sought a 60‑day continuance and complex‑case exclusion under the CJRA.
The trial court initially denied the State’s complex‑case request, excluded the DNA evidence as a discovery sanction rather than granting a continuance, and denied reconsideration. The State obtained emergent appellate leave and stayed trial pending appeal.
The Appellate Division consolidated appeals: (A‑1780‑17) State appeals exclusion and denial of continuance/excludable time; (A‑2051‑17) defendant appeals trial court’s later orders finding excludable time while the interlocutory appeal was pending.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Washington's Argument	Held
Whether the lab’s July 25 draft DNA report was within the prosecutor’s “possession, custody or control” under R.3:13‑3 and thus discoverable earlier	State: lab is part of prosecution team; BCPO should have produced report earlier	Def: lab materials not within county prosecutor’s control; late disclosure justified sanction	Held: draft report was in NJSP lab control and not within BCPO control until emailed; discovery duty arose only after lab review/approval, so no Rule 3:13‑3 violation
Whether exclusion of DNA evidence was an appropriate discovery sanction (vs. continuance)	State: any Rule 3:13‑3(b)(1)(C) violation did not justify preclusion; continuance was appropriate	Def: late production prejudiced preparation; sanction justified	Held: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; continuance (preferred remedy) should have been ordered given absence of design to mislead, lack of prejudice, and evidentiary importance
Whether the case qualified as a “complex case” under N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑22(b)(1)(g) (CJRA) because of DNA complexity and thus time was excludable	State: new allele testing standards and required technical‑leader review made the DNA analysis unusually complex, justifying excludable time	Def: single defendant, limited witnesses, DNA common in many cases; not complex	Held: complexity can justify exclusion only if it makes adequate preparation within the speedy‑trial period unreasonable; initial motion failed to show that, but additional lab evidence on reconsideration required the court to reassess (trial court’s denial of reconsideration vacated)
Whether time during emergent applications/interlocutory appeal and the trial court’s sua sponte orders was excludable and whether trial court retained jurisdiction to enter those orders after appellate filings	State: time while emergent relief/interlocutory appeal pending is excludable; trial court may enter orders related to detention	Def: trial court lost jurisdiction after State filed for leave; court orders preventing release conflicted with Appellate Division stay terms	Held: periods while emergent application, emergent motion, and interlocutory appeal were pending are excludable under N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑22(b)(1)(c) and (l); trial court retained jurisdiction to calculate excludable time and address detention after leave was granted; December orders affirmed as modified

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robertson, 438 N.J. Super. 47 (App. Div.) (2014) (prosecutor not required to produce testing‑related materials not within prosecutor control)
State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011) (Rule 3:13‑3 includes writings of police under county prosecutor supervision)
State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (2017) (pretrial detention discovery rule and scope of prosecutor possession for detention hearings)
State v. Dickerson, 232 N.J. 2 (2018) (distinguishing discovery sanctions from speedy‑trial statute remedies)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (peer review as quality control in forensic/psychological testing)