State v. Farmer

213 A.2d 249, 45 N.J. 520, 1965 N.J. LEXIS 193

• Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Decided: September 21, 1965
• Status: Published

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The State seeks leave to appeal from an interlocutory order granting defendant pretrial discovery of grand jury testimony and statements taken by the prosecutor from persons other than defendant. The trial court deemed the circumstances to be exceptional and to warrant a relaxation under R. R. 1:27A of the pertinent rules of Court. R. R. 3:3-7; 3:5-11. See State v. Reynolds, 41 N. J. 163, 182 (1963); State v. Clement, 40 N. J. 139 (1963); State v. DiModica, 40 N. J. 404 (1963); State v. Moffa, 36 N. J. 219 (1961); State v. Johnson, 28 N. J. 133, 143-144 (1958). We directed oral argument on the application.

Por a period after the alleged murder defendant was confined to a mental institution under a judgment that he was unable to defend against the indictment. See Farmer v. State, 42 N. J. 579 (1964). Psychiatrists have testified that the defendant claims he blacked out before the killing, and defendant has filed with us an affidavit that: “I cannot to this day recall any of the events of September 18, 1963 which surround the alleged shooting at my home involving my wife and me.” In the circumstances defense counsel believes he cannot prepare for trial without the inspection he sought.

The State apparently is primarily concerned with the possible precedential influence of the order in other cases. Beyond a belief that some tactical advantage inheres in withholding disclosure until trial, the prosecutor can see no harm. In other words, the prosecution will not be hampered, and neither the grand jury testimony nor the statements in question contain anything which should be sealed even at trial in the public interest. At the argument, the possibility was suggested that the papers in question might contain statements by third persons which could not aid defendant but the disclosure of which might embarrass such third persons or others. In this regard counsel for defendant expressed his willingness to cooperate, and in any event the trial court can order a modification of its order. At the argument the thought was advanced that relief in any event should have been conditioned upon a like disclosure by defendant of statements of his witnesses. This may well be so, but the suggestion is here academic in the light of the representation to us by defense counsel that he has nothing to exchange. See State v. Cook, 43 N. J. 560, 568 (1965); State v. Whitlow, 45 N. J. 3, 21 (1965).

Defendant’s application was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. In view of the unusual circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in his decision. Leave to appeal is accordingly denied.