Title: New Jersey v. Hyppolite

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the
Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.

                      State v. Shaquan Hyppolite (A-48-17) (080302)

Argued September 13, 2018 -- Decided December 11, 2018

RABNER, C.J., writing for the Court.

       When the State seeks to detain a defendant pretrial under the Criminal Justice Reform
Act (CJRA), prosecutors must disclose “all exculpatory evidence” before the detention
hearing, see R. 3:4-2(c)(2)(E). In this case, the Court considers the appropriate remedy when
the State fails to disclose exculpatory evidence before a detention hearing.

      In March 2017, police officers responded to a report of a shooting in a parking lot at
Lafayette Gardens in Jersey City and found Terrel Smith’s lifeless body. Smith had been
shot multiple times. The police identified “Michael Gregg” as a witness and interviewed
him. Over time, he made two separate -- and inconsistent -- statements.

        A few hours after the shooting, Gregg said that he was in the victim’s Jeep around the
time of the shooting. After the victim got out of the car, Gregg said he heard three to four
gunshots but did not see the shooter. Gregg spoke to the police again on June 8, 2017 and
gave a second statement. Gregg said the victim had picked him up on the day of the
shooting, and the two were selling drugs. Gregg said he recognized several other men in the
area including Quan, “Bill,” and “Frank.” During a break in the interview, Gregg told the
police he was worried about his safety and the safety of his family. He provided more details
after the break: Quan approached the victim when he left the car to get more drugs; Quan
was clutching something inside his hooded sweatshirt, which Gregg thought was a firearm;
Quan and the victim had a short conversation on the driver’s side of the car before Gregg
heard a gunshot; and Gregg ran away as he heard several more gunshots. Gregg identified
defendant Shaquan Hyppolite from a photo array.

        Defendant was charged and arrested for murder and weapons offenses. The affidavit
of probable cause in support of the complaint stated that “an eyewitness . . . positively
identified Shaquan Hyppolite AKA Quan as the actor who” killed Terrel Smith.

       The State moved for pretrial detention the next day. Two days later, the State made
available fifty-one pages of discovery materials and a DVD recording of Gregg’s interview
on June 8, 2017. On the day of the detention hearing, the State also turned over a four-page
written summary of that interview titled “Second Interview of [Gregg].” The State did not
disclose Gregg’s first statement before the hearing.

                                               1
         At the detention hearing, the court ordered that defendant be detained. Two months
later, a grand jury indicted defendant. The State turned over additional discovery, including
Gregg’s first statement to the police, recordings of interviews of Bill and Frank, and an
application for a communications data warrant for Gregg’s cell phone.

       This marked the first time defendant received Gregg’s initial statement to the police,
in which he denied having seen the shooter. Bill’s statement revealed that he told the police
he was in jail at the time of the homicide. Frank told the police that he was en route to
Popeyes when he heard gunshots from Lafayette Gardens. The application for the
communications data warrant noted that an eyewitness saw the victim engaged in a
conversation with three men before the shooting, “which conflicts with [Gregg’s] version of
events.” Based on the new discovery, defendant moved to reopen the detention hearing.

        The trial court issued a written opinion and denied the application. The court found
that the additional discovery contained exculpatory evidence, and that the State therefore
violated Rule 3:4-2(c) by failing to disclose the items before the hearing. The court,
however, found that the evidence withheld was not material. The Appellate Division denied
leave to appeal. The Court granted leave to appeal.  232 N.J. 370 (2018).

HELD: When exculpatory evidence is disclosed after a detention hearing, judges should use
a modified materiality standard to decide whether to reopen the hearing. If there is a
reasonable possibility that the result of the detention hearing would have been different had
the evidence been disclosed, the hearing should be reopened. Applying that standard in this
case, the Court reverses and remands to the trial court to reopen the detention hearing.

1. When the State seeks to detain a defendant pretrial, the prosecutor must provide the
defendant with “all exculpatory evidence” “no later than 24 hours before the detention
hearing.” R. 3:4-2(c)(2)(E). At any time before trial, a defendant may apply to reopen a
detention hearing under  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f). (pp. 9-12)

2. The requirement to turn over exculpatory evidence before a detention hearing is grounded
in the State’s affirmative obligation to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant. Brady v.
Maryland held that the prosecution’s “suppression . . . of evidence favorable to an accused
. . . violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”