mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments
made in connection with the case. See State v. J.Q., 130
N.J. 554, 582 (1993); State v. Gordon, 261 N.J. Super.
462, 465 (App. Div. 1993) (rule applies only to items in
prosecutor’s possession, custody, or control); State v.
Maida, 332 N.J. Super. 564, 575 (Law Div. 2000)
(same); See also State v. Zola, 112 N.J. 384, 408-12
(1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1022 (1989); State v. Cook,
43 N.J. 560 (1965); State v. White, 227 N.J. Super. 443
(App. Div. 1988); State v. Hofford, 152 N.J. Super. 283
(App. Div. 1977); State v. Perez, 150 N.J. Super. 166
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 542 (1977); State v.
Feldman, 254 N.J. Super. 754 (Law Div. 1992).
3. Police Reports
R. 3:13-3(c)(8) (formerly R. 3:13-3(a)(9)) permits
defendants to obtain police reports within the
prosecutor’s possession, custody, or control. See State v.
Dreher, 302 N.J. Super. 408, 485 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 152 N.J. 10 (1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 943
(1998); see also Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98
(1986) (need clear showing of advancement of public
interest to overcome confidentiality of police records);
State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2000);
State v. Barath, 169 N.J. Super. 181 (Law Div. 1979),
aff’d, 172 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 1980). But the
State has no obligation to preserve handwritten reports
prepared by officers in the field. State v. Dreher, 302 N.J.
Super. at 485.
Cf. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (as to
review of children and youth services files); New Jersey
Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.R., 314 N.J.
Super. 390 (App. Div. 1998) (as to review of Division of
Youth and Family Services records); State v. L.J.P., 270
N.J. Super. 429 (App. Div. 1994) (same).
4. Juvenile Records and Probationary Status (See also, WITNESSES, this Digest)
The State is to disclose charges made against its
juvenile witnesses, but those charges cannot be used to
impeach credibility. See State v. Hare, 139 N.J. Super.
150, 153-54 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 70 N.J. 525
(1976); State v. Tull, 234 N.J. Super. 486, 498-99 (Law
Div. 1989); State v. Ramos, 169 N.J. Super. 573, 574
(Law Div. 1979).
5. Identity of Informants (See also, EVIDENCE, this Digest)
N.J.R.E. 516 (formerly Evidence R. 36) and N.J.S.A.
2A:84A-28 grant a witness the privilege to refuse to
disclose the identity of a person who furnished
information to the State or federal government
concerning a crime. This privilege may be overcome if the
trial court determines either that the informant’s identity
has already been disclosed or that disclosure is essential to
assure a fair determination of the issues. This rule and
statute foster effective law enforcement by encouraging
citizens to report crimes, and help provide a flow of
information to the police. See, e.g., Grodjesk v. Faghani,
104 N.J. 89, 96-97 (1986); Maudsley v. State, 323 N.J.
Super. 579, 589 (App. Div. 1999); State v. Wright, 312
N.J. Super. at 453-54; State v. Gallagher, 274 N.J. Super.
285, 301-03 (App. Div. 1994); State v. Foreshaw, 245
N.J. Super. 166, 179-84 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 126
N.J. 327 (1991); State v. Williams, 239 N.J. Super. 620,
627 (App. Div. 1990).This protection also seems to extend to an informant
giving information to a school vice-principal, and to
administrative agencies that regulate professions and
investigate complaints of unprofessional conduct.
Grodjesk v. Faghani, 104 N.J. at 97-98; State v.
Biancamano, 284 N.J. Super. 654, 660 (App. Div.
1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 516 (1996). Accident
reports obtained pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 are
specifically exempt from N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-28’s confiden-
tiality requirements.6. Surveillance Locations (See also, EVIDENCE, this Digest)
N.J.R.E. 515 (formerly Evidence R. 34) and N.J.S.A.
2A:84A-27 grant an “official information privilege”
forbidding disclosure of such information of the State or
federal government. This privilege permits the
prosecution to withhold information of a surveillance
location under appropriate circumstances. See State v.
Garcia, 131 N.J. 67, 70, 72-82 (1993); State v. Ribalta,
277 N.J. Super. 277, 287-89 (App. Div. 1994), certif.
denied, 139 N.J. 442 (1995); State v. Laws, 262 N.J.
Super. 551, 558-60 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J.
475 (1993); State v. Williams, 239 N.J. Super. at 623-34.7. Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose (See also, PROSECUTORS, this Digest)
a. R. 3:13-3 Generally
The prosecutor shall permit defendant to inspect and
copy nine particular forms of relevant material as set forth
in R. 3:13-3(c), if not already provided after indictment