State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. William D. Brown, State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Nigil J… (New Jersey 2019)

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the State's failure to produce nineteen discovery items until a week after the murder trial began violated the defendants' due‑process rights under Brady. The Court reversed the Appellate Division, vacated the murder convictions, and remanded for a new trial, finding that the violation materially prejudiced the defendants. The Court also held that the trial court erred in excluding the Norton Affidavit but did not err in admitting the victim's dying declaration, and that double‑jeopardy does not bar a new trial.

Holding

Whether the State's delayed disclosure of nineteen discovery items violated the defendants' due‑process rights under Brady v. Maryland.. Yes; the State's failure to produce the items until a week after trial began violated Brady because the evidence was favorable, was suppressed, and was material to the defendants' case.

If a Brady violation occurred, whether the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the indictment with prejudice or a new trial.. A new trial is required; dismissal with prejudice is not warranted because the State did not act with willful misconduct.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the Norton Affidavit under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(5).. Yes; the Norton Affidavit should have been admitted as a past recollection recorded because it was trustworthy and relevant.

Whether the trial court erred in overturning the pre‑trial exclusion of the victim's dying declaration.. No; the admission of the dying declaration was proper under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(2) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Whether double‑jeopardy bars a new trial after the Brady violation.. No; double‑jeopardy does not apply because the State did not intentionally provoke a mistrial.

Summary

Holding

Cited by