pursuant to R. 3:13-3(b). See, e.g., State v. J.Q., 130 N.J.
at 582 (State’s expert’s report); State v. Zola, 112 N.J. at
410-12, 416-19 (State’s expert’s reports and change of
opinion); State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. at 538-61
(discovery of documents relating to selective prosecu-
tion); State v. Nelson, 330 N.J. Super. 206, 218 (App.
Div. 2000) (prior convictions of State’s proposed
witness); State v. Alfano, 305 N.J. Super. 178, 188 (App.
Div. 1997) (State to disclose recorded statements of
potential witnesses); State v. Gordon, 261 N.J. Super. at
462 (State need not create evidence); State v. Carter, 278
N.J. Super. 629, 634 (Law Div. 1994) (1973 revision of
criminal discovery rule effectively made prosecutor’s
entire file available to defendant).
Not every discovery violation mandates reversal of
convictions or dismissal of charges against defendant. See
State v. Zola, 112 N.J. at 418-19; State v. Laganella, 144
N.J. Super. 268, 279-83 (App. Div.), app. dism’d, 74 N.J.
256 (1976); cf. State v. Cole, 204 N.J. Super. 618, 626
(App. Div. 1985) (Public Defender at fault for not
forwarding to pro se defendant the timely discovery
provided by the State).
b. Brady Violation (See also, PROSECUTORS, this Digest)
The State is required to disclose to defendant
favorable evidence that is material either to guilt or to
punishment, and to prove a violation of this duty
defendant must demonstrate that (1) the prosecution
suppressed evidence, (2) that evidence was favorable to
the defense, and (3) that it was material. Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); State v. Martini, 160
N.J. 248, 268-69 (1999); State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super.
114, 134 (App. Div. 2000).. “Material” evidence is that
which, if disclosed to defendant, had a reasonable
probability to change the proceeding’s outcome. United
States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1995); State v.
Martini, 160 N.J. at 269; State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super.
at 134; State v. Aguiar, 322 N.J. Super. 175, 185 (App.
Div. 1999). Impeachment evidence, too, falls under
Brady. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676; State v.
Russo, 333 N.J. Super. at 134; State v. Jones, 308 N.J.
Super. 15, 41-42 (App. Div. 1998). Failure to disclose
Brady material can be harmless. State v. Russo, 333 N.J.
Super. at 134; State v. Scherzer, 301 N.J. Super. 363, 431-
33 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 466 (1997); State
v. Carter, 221 N.J. Super. 219, 225-26 (App. Div. 1987),
certif. denied, 110 N.J. 291 (1988).
c. Non-Compliance with Discovery Rules
The trial court has broad discretion in remedying
discovery rule violations, ranging from ordering the party
to turn over discovery, granting a continuance or delay
during trial, prohibiting the use of evidence not
disclosed, dismissal of the charges, or any other
appropriate relief. R. 3:13-3(g); State v. Cuni, 159 N.J.
584, 598 (1999); State v. Rowe, 316 N.J. Super. 425, 433
(App. Div. 1998), certif. denied, 160 N.J. 89 (1999);
State v. Polasky, 216 N.J. Super. 549, 556-57 (Law Div.
1986); State v. Hofford, 152 N.J. Super. at 291-92.d. Destruction of Evidence
The State need only preserve “evidence that might be
expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s
defense.” California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489
(1984); see, e.g., State v. Dreher, 302 N.J. Super. at 482;
State v. Bohuk, 269 N.J. Super. 581, 597 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 136 N.J. 29, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 865
(1994); State v. Serret, 198 N.J. Super. 21, 23-28 (App.
Div. 1984), certif. denied, 101 N.J. 217 (1985); State v.
Montijo, 321 N.J. Super. 483, 485-93 (Law Div. 1998).e. Protective Orders
R. 3:13-3(f) allows the court in its discretion, on
motion and for good cause shown, to order at any time
that the discovery sought be denied, restricted, or
deferred. See State v. Garcia, 131 N.J. at 83; State v.
Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. at 557; State v. Wright, 312 N.J.
Super. at 449, 454 (State could seek protective order to
preclude disclosure of confidential informant’s identity);
State v. DeMarco, 275 N.J. Super. 311, 322 (App. Div.
1994); State v. Carter, 278 N.J. Super. at 634.8. Post-Verdict Interrogation of Jury (See also, JURIES, this Digest)
9. Racial Profiling
See State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. at 538-61
(showing necessary to obtain discovery of state police
records regarding profiling; appointed statewide judge to
determine scope of discovery); see also United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996); State v. Kennedy, 247
N.J. Super. 21 (App. Div. 1991); State v. Soto, 324 N.J.
Super. 66 (Law Div. 1996).