Prosecutor must provide videotape and audiotape
plus names of officers from other towns involved in stop
State v Stein
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-26 September Term 2014
074466
In
this appeal from defendant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and
careless driving, the Court considers the obligations of a municipal prosecutor
under Rule 7:7-7(b), which governs discovery in municipal court proceedings.
Defendant Robert Stein was
charged with DWI and careless driving after a motor vehicle accident in Wayne
Township. The responding officers observed that defendant’s eyes were bloodshot
and watery, his speech was slurred, his breath smelled of alcohol, and, as he
walked, he swayed and grasped for support. Defendant also failed the field
sobriety tests. Defendant claimed that, while performing the sobriety tests, he
was suffering the effects of the crash of his vehicle and deployment of the air
bags, which hit him squarely in the face. The two breath samples that defendant
gave during a breathalyzer test revealed blood alcohol concentrations of 0.17 and
0.18 percent.
In
pretrial discovery, defendant requested the names of the police officers who
responded to the scene, including those from a neighboring township. The
municipal prosecutor did not provide the names of the neighboring township’s
officers, and defendant did not raise the issue with the municipal court.
Defendant also requested videotapes which may have recorded his appearance,
behavior, and motor skills at the accident scene and police headquarters. The
municipal prosecutor repeatedly stated, at a pretrial hearing and trial, that
videotapes did not exist. Defendant disputed that contention, and continued to
request the tapes. The record is unclear on whether videotapes existed when
defendant requested them because that issue was neither presented to, nor
determined by, the municipal court.
The
municipal court found defendant guilty of DWI and careless driving. The court
based its DWI finding on the breathalyzer readings and the officers’
observations of defendant. The court sentenced defendant, as a third-time DWI
offender, to incarceration for a term of 180 days in the county jail and loss
of his license for a period of ten years. After a trial de novo on the record,
the Law Division also convicted defendant of DWI and careless driving, based on
the breathalyzer readings and, separately, on observational evidence. The court
imposed the same sentence as did the municipal court. Additionally, the Law
Division ruled that the municipal prosecutor was not required to provide
discovery of the names of the neighboring police officers or the videotapes
that defendant requested. The Appellate Division affirmed the motor-vehicle
convictions and the Law Division’s discovery rulings. This Court granted
limited certification. 220 N.J. 97 (2014).
H_E_L_D_:_
_Under Rule 7:7-7(b), the municipal
prosecutor was required to provide defendant with the names of the police
officers from the adjacent jurisdiction who responded to the accident scene.
Because, when the prosecutor failed to provide the information, defendant did
not raise this issue before the municipal court, or seek relief under the Rule,
the issue has been waived. The prosecutor was also required to provide the
videotapes that defendant requested, if they existed, since such information
was clearly relevant to a DWI defense. Because the Court cannot determine from
the record whether any videotapes exist, the matter is remanded to the Law
Division for further proceedings on this issue.
1. The resolution by the
trial court of a discovery issue is entitled to substantial deference and will
not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. On appeal, a court need not
defer to a discovery order that is based on a mistaken understanding of the
applicable law. In reviewing the meaning of a court rule, this Court owes no
deference to the interpretations of the trial court and the Appellate Division,
unless they are persuasive in their reasoning.
2. The discovery rules governing
the municipal court and the Criminal Part of the Law Division are nearly
identical, and both mandate the disclosure of the same categories of
information. Broad discovery and the open-file approach apply in criminal cases
to ensure fair and just trials. In light of the similarity between criminal and
municipal court cases, the procedural protections afforded, and their discovery
rules, the liberal approach to discovery in criminal cases is applicable in
municipal court cases. Rule 7:7-7(b) provides that a defendant has a right to
discovery of all relevant material in a municipal court case. The Rule sets
forth eleven specific categories of information that a defendant is entitled to
receive, on written request to the municipal prosecutor.
3. Under Rule 7:7-7(b)(7), if the municipal prosecutor knows
that police officers from an adjoining jurisdiction have relevant information
pertaining to a DWI case, their names and addresses must be disclosed to the
defendant. The Rule does not distinguish between individuals with relevant
information who are located within the municipality having jurisdiction over
the charges against a defendant, and those located outside the jurisdiction.
4. Under Rule 7:7-7(b)(6), a municipal prosecutor is required
to provide a defendant, upon his request, with relevant documentary evidence,
including video and sound recordings and images if it is within the State’s
custody or control. A video or sound recording, such as a recording from a
patrol car’s dashboard camera, or a video recording of a breathalyzer test, or
defendant’s appearance, behavior and motor skills, including his performance of
psychomotor physical or sobriety tests, is relevant to prove or disprove a DWI
defendant’s intoxication. The State may seek the redaction of a video
recording, or an in camera review, if necessary, under appropriate
circumstances and consistent with a defendant’s fair-trial rights. To ensure
the availability of such evidence, a defendant should give written notice to
the municipal prosecutor to preserve pertinent videotapes.
5. In this case, the municipal prosecutor had an obligation
under Rule 7:7-7(b)(7) to provide defendant with the names of the police
officers from the adjoining town of Pequannock who had responded to the
accident scene, based on the two discovery letters that defense counsel sent to
the municipal prosecutor. However, defendant did not seek to compel the
prosecutor to comply with the State’s disclosure obligations, as authorized by
Rule 7:7-7(j). Because defendant did not raise or preserve the issue in municipal
court, the Court declines to consider it on appeal.
6. The two discovery letters that defendant’s counsel sent to
the municipal prosecutor requesting videotapes, or recordings made by a
video-equipped police vehicle, of the accident scene and of defendant’s
appearance and performance of the sobriety tests, unquestionably sought
relevant evidence. This Court disagrees with the determination of the courts
below, and holds that the videotapes must be disclosed under Rule 7:7-7(b)(6),
provided that such recordings existed at the time defendant sought the
information. Such tapes would provide evidence relevant to defendant’s sobriety
and the officers’ conclusion that defendant was under the influence.
7. The Court remands this matter to the Law Division for
further proceedings to determine whether any relevant video recordings ever
existed, or were available when defendant made the discovery requests.
Depending on the court’s conclusions on remand regarding whether the tapes
existed, the Law Division has wide latitude to fashion an appropriate remedy
pursuant to Rule 7:7-7(j).
The judgment
of the Appellate Division is A_F_F_I_R_M_E_D_ _I_N_ _P_A_R_T_ _and R_E_V_E_R_S_E_D_
_I_N_ _P_A_R_T_, and the matter is R_E_M_A_N_D_E_D_ _to the Law
Division for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
