Expert should not be permitted to testify on ultimate issue. State v. Simms 224 NJ 393 (2016)  

Expert testimony that “embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact,” N.J.R.E. 704, is not admissible unless the subject matter is beyond the ken of the average juror. State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504, 515-16, 519 (2006). Expert testimony is not necessary to tell the jury the “obvious” or to resolve issues that the jury can figure out on its own. In addition, a prosecutor may not “summarize straightforward but disputed evidence in the form of a hypothetical and then elicit an expert opinion about what happened.” State v. Sowell, 213 N.J. 89, 102 (2013).

The erroneously assumed fact in the hypothetical question—that the object in defendant’s hand was a bundle of heroin packets—unfairly buttressed the State’s case. It was for the jury to decide the identity of the object based on an examination of the totality of the evidence. The ultimate-issue testimony on conspiracy, moreover, impermissibly intruded into the jury’s singular role as trier of fact.  

Alcotest dwi Breath Test Coordinator N.J. State Police sergeant charged with records tampering in DWI cases for failure to conduct proper tests of breath machines

Alcotest dwi Breath Test Coordinator N.J. State Police sergeant charged with records tampering in DWI cases for failure to conduct proper tests of breath machines

source http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/state_police_sergeant_charged_with_records_tamperi.html

By S.P. Sullivan | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

on September 19, 2016  A New Jersey State Police sergeant has been charged with records tampering for allegedly skipping a required step in the calibration of alcohol breath-testing devices, documents show. 

The disclosure could open up more than 20,000 DWI cases to court challenges, according to a copy of a letter sent to court administrators and obtained by NJ Advance Media..

       Sgt. Marc Dennis, a coordinator in the State Police Alcohol Drug Testing Unit, is accused of third degree tampering with public records and fourth degree falsifying or tampering with records, according to the letter, sent Monday by the state Division of Criminal Justice, which brought the charges.  

      Elie Honig, the division's director, wrote that Dennis was accused of deliberately omitting a step in re-calibrating three Alcotest devices — more commonly known as breathalyzers — which are used to test the intoxication level of accused drunken drivers. 

Lt. Brian Polite, a spokesman for the State Police, said Monday that Dennis' behavior was noticed by his supervisor and "immediately reported" to the division's internal affairs unit, the Office of Professional Standards. 

"Once it was determined that there was a possibility of criminal charges being filed, it was then referred to Division of Criminal Justice," he said. 

In a letter to court administrators, state prosecutors outlined the technical details of the accusations against State Police Sgt. Marc Dennis.

View entire document with DocumentCloud

    But Dennis calibrated Alcotest instruments in Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset, and Union counties over the course of seven years, and state authorities have identified 20,667 individual cases involving devices he handled, according to the letter. 

         The accusation could create a tangle of litigation similar to another State Police case involving a drug lab technician, Kamalkant Shah, who was accused of falsifying test results in a single marijuana case, bringing nearly 15,000 drug cases into question.

As in the drug lab case, the Attorney General's Office has requested a judge be appointed as a "special master" to field the potential glut of appeals. State authorities allege that Dennis falsely certified to performing temperature checks when recalibrating the Alcotest devices, which were used in two DWI cases before being taken out of service.

           Honig said that step, while not scientifically necessary, is required under a procedure developed by the State Police's chief forensic scientist. That procedure was created to comply with a state Supreme Court decision regarding the admissibility of DWI test results in court, known as State v. Chun, the letter said.

         "The breath test results were not relied upon in reaching the disposition of these two cases," Honig wrote. "We have notified defense counsel in those cases of the circumstances described in this letter."

Dennis was suspended without pay.  source http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/state_police_sergeant_charged_with_records_tamperi.html

No automatic right to discovery of other files State v. Hernandez 225 NJ 451 (2016)

No automatic right to discovery of other files

State v. Hernandez 225 NJ 451 (2016)

Although the discovery rule generally requires that the State provide all evidence relevant to the defense of criminal charges, it does not open the door to foraging through files of other cases in search of relevant evidence. The discovery ordered by the trial court and  Appellate Division exceeds the limits of Rule 3:13-3(b) and is not supported by this Court’s jurisprudence.  

Police video is public record under OPRA Paff v Ocean County Prosecutors Officer

Police video is public record under OPRA  Paff v Ocean County Prosecutors Officer __ NJ Super. __ (App. Div. 2016)

(MVRs) in  police vehicles - which, in accordance with the police chief’s  written policy order, are generated automatically whenever the  vehicle’s overhead lights are activated - are “government  records” subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Appellant Ocean County  Prosecutor’s Office failed to carry its statutory burden to show that the films fall within an exception under OPRA. Judge Gilson dissents. A-4226-14T3

Suppression where stop based only for high beam State v. Scriven

Suppression where stop based only for high beam State v. Scriven __ NJ __

The trial court and Appellate Division properly concluded that the motor-vehicle stop violated the Federal and State Constitutions. The language of the high-beam statute, N.J.S.A. 39:3-60, is unambiguous; drivers are required to dim their high beams only when approaching an oncoming vehicle. Neither a car parked on a perpendicular street nor an on-foot police officer count as an oncoming vehicle. The judgment of the Appellate Division upholding the trial court’s suppression of the evidence is affirmed. (A-11-15)