disturbance insufficient to constitute a defense), cert.
denied, _ U.S. __, 120 S.Ct. 593 (1999).
2. Bifurcation
Reliance on the inconsistent defenses of alibi and
insanity may, but does not require, a bifurcated trial
proceeding. See State v. Johnston, 257 N.J. Super. 178,
195 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 596 (1992);
State v. Haseen, 191 N.J. Super. 564, 565-67 (App. Div.
1983); cf. State v. Khan, 175 N.J. Super. 72, 75-84 (App.
Div. 1980) (bifurcation needed where conflicting
defenses of insanity and self-defense are involved).
F. Subpoena Duces Tecum (See also, GRAND JURY and SUBPOENAS, this Digest)
1. Generally
As set forth previously, R. 1:9-2 governs the use of
subpoenas duces tecum to obtain books, papers,
documents, or other designated objects.
2. Resistance (See also SEARCH and SEIZURE, this Digest)
Defendants can oppose subpoenas via motions to
quash, and can rely on grounds of unreasonableness or
oppression. Cupano v. Gluck, 133 N.J. at 236; State v.
Cooper, 2 N.J. at 556-57; In re Grand Jury Subpoenas
Duces Tecum, 143 N.J. Super. 526, 532-40 (Law Div.
1976). To obtain results of a blood test protected by the
patient-physician privilege, the police in a drunk-driving
investigation should apply to a judge for a subpoena duces
tecum, which will be treated as the functional equivalent
of a search warrant. State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229, 232, 240-
41 (1984); State v. Bodtmann, 239 N.J. Super. at 35-44;
cf. State v. Weston, 216 N.J. Super. at 545-48 (prosecutor
used subpoena duces tecum to obtain county jail records
pertaining to defendant that did not disclose trial
strategy and that were not prejudicial). While State can
serve subpoena duces tecum on testifying defendant and
have him produce certain documents without violating
his or her constitutional rights, trial court can afford
defendant reasonable time to comply. State v. Zwillman,
112 N.J. Super. 6, 14-15 (App. Div. 1970), certif. denied,
57 N.J. 603 (1971); see In re Application of Attorney
General, 116 N.J. Super. 143, 145-47 (Ch. Div. 1971).
3. Grand Jury Subpoenas (See also GRAND JURY, this Digest)
Subpoenas duces tecum may be issued to aid a grand
jury in its investigation if reasonable, and need not be
founded on probable cause. In re Grand Jury Proceedings,
104 N.J. 218, 220-21 (1986); State v. Stelzner, 257 N.J.
Super. 219, 235-36 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J.
396 (1992); In re Doe and Roe Corp., 294 N.J. Super. 108,
120-29 (Law Div. 1996), aff’d, 302 N.J. Super. 255
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 468 (1997), cert.
denied, 523 U.S. 1096 (1998). The State can issue the
subpoenas on the grand jury’s behalf, without the latter’s
prior authorization, and have them returnable before that
body. State v. Hilltop Private Nursing Home, Inc., 177 N.J.
Super. 377, 379-97 (App. Div. 1981). The prosecutor
cannot, however, issue a pre-trial subpoena independent
of the grand jury. State v. Johnson, 287 N.J. Super. 247,
258 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 144 N.J. 587 (1996);
State v. Misik, 238 N.J. Super. 367, 376 (Law Div. 1989).III. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IN CAPITAL CASES
A. Generally (See also CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, this Digest)
R. 3:13-4 sets forth additional discovery that the
prosecutor and defendant are to provide in capital cases,
and explains that this is a continuing duty for both
parties.B. To Defendant
R. 3:13-4(a) requires the prosecutor, by the time of
arraignment, to provide defendant with a list of the
aggravating factors that may be proved at sentencing.
The prosecutor must also turn over the discovery bearing
on those factors, and any discovery relevant to the
existence of mitigating factors. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(2); see,
e.g., State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326, 355 (1997); State v.
Fortin, 318 N.J. Super. 577, 581 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d
o.g. 162 N.J. 517 (2000); State v. Spotswood, 202 N.J.
Super. 532, 533 (Law Div. 1984).C. To the State
R. 3:13-4(b) requires defendant, immediately upon
a verdict or plea of guilty in a capital case, to provide the
prosecutor with itemized mitigating factors that may be
proved at sentencing, and any discovery relevant to those
factors. See State v. Douglas, 322 N.J. Super. 156, 171
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 197 (1999).