communication. State v. McBride, 213 N.J. Super. 255
(App. Div. 1986).
Isoenzyme procedure test may be admitted when
brought in with a qualified expert witness. State v. King,
215 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 1987).
Defendant does not have the right to force admission
of a polygraph test to which the State has not stipulated.
Defendant may bring in his own expert witness to testify
as to a stipulated polygraph test. State v. Capone, 215
N.J. Super. 497 (App. Div. 1987).
In State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. 318 (1998), the
Supreme Court reversed the reckless manslaughter
convictions of a drunk driver who killed an elderly couple
in a collision because the Court found that the medical
examiner testified to matters beyond his sphere of
expertise. Specifically, the Court objected to the medical
examiner’s testimony that the deaths were homicides,
that the defendant was reckless, that the defendant’s
recklessness caused the deaths, and that a witness to the
accident who favored the defense was mistaken. The
Court held that a medical examiner’s testimony should
be limited to “describing the mechanics of death.”
In State v. Clowney, 299 N.J.Super. 1 (App. Div.
1997), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 77 (1997), a per curiam
opinion, the Appellate Division inter alia ruled proper
the cross-examination of defendant’s expert, ruling that
the prosecutor’s questions regarding the crime of rape
and profile of rapists were not offered to demonstrate that
defendant fit a profile but only to refute the expert’s claim
that defendant did not have the requisite state of mind
necessary for the crime.
A criminal defendant may cross-examine a State’s
expert on the facts, methodology and rationale
underlying the expert’s opinion, but the right to
confrontation does not guarantee unlimited cross-
examination of a witness. State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117,
187 (1997), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 811 (2000).
In State v. Jackson, 278 N.J. Super. 69 (App. Div.
1994), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 95 (1995), the Appellate
Division held that a police officer in a drug case may
properly testify both as an expert witness and a fact
witness, but the court should clarify those dual roles in
the instruction to the jury to prevent confusion.
XI. DISCOVERY OF WITNESSES (See also,
DISCOVERY, this Digest)
R. 3:13-3 imposes a continuing duty on the part of
each party to disclose the names and addresses of
potential witnesses. Where the party knows a witness will
definitely be called, the party is bound to provide the
information. State v. Stevens, 222 N.J. Super. 602 (App.
Div. 1988), aff’d, 115 N.J. 289 (1989).The State’s failure to provide interview notes with
witnesses was not grounds for a mistrial where the defense
was not prejudiced. State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 134
(1991), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929 (1993).