Title: State v. Timothy Miller

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(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 Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). LONG, J., writing for a unanimous Court. The issue addressed by the Court is whether the trial court denied defendant his rights under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 and under the Constitution when it admitted a laboratory certificate over defendant's objection and without expert testimony. In 1997, defendant was arrested for a drug offense. He was subsequently indicted on one count of third- degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1). The substance was certified as cocaine by the State Police Forensic Science Bureau. On May 29, 1999, the state notified defendant's attorney in writing of its intent to proffer the laboratory certificate in place of producing a witness, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c. Defense counsel replied in writing, objecting to the introduction of the certificate and questioning the accuracy of the analysis of the composition, quality and quantity of the substance. In addition, defense counsel inquired whether the state was intending to request a pre-trial hearing on the subject of the certificate or present a witness at the time of trial. A copy of the notice of objection was also submitted to the trial court. The state never responded to defense counsel's letter. Instead, it provided defense counsel with the name and curriculum vitae of the laboratory employee. The state subsequently sought to introduce the certificate at trial without a witness and defense counsel objected. The state claimed it never received defense counsel's letter and that, consequently, the alleged letter was not on file. Defense counsel's secretary testified that the letter was sent to both the state and the trial court. The trial court allowed the lab certificate to be admitted without a hearing. Although the court believed that the notice of objection was sent, it also believed that the state never received it. The trial court therefore ruled that there was no way for the state to know of defense counsel's objection or the need for a preliminary hearing. The trial court further held that defense counsel's objections did not satisfy the specificity requirement of State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27 (1985). Defendant was convicted and his motion for a new trial was denied. Defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate specific grounds for objecting to the certificate. In addition, the court concluded that even if it was error to admit the certificate without testimony, the error was harmless under R. 2:10-2. The Supreme Court granted certification and allowed the Attorney General to participate as amicus curiae. HELD: An objection under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 to the introduction of a lab certificate satisfies the statute so long as the defendant timely objects to the admission of the certificate and asserts that the lab results will be contested at trial. 1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its state counterpart ensures the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him. Furthermore, the Amendment protects a defendant from unreliable evidence by subjecting the evidence to rigorous testing in an adversarial proceeding. A lab certificate offered to prove the composition, quality or quantity of an alleged controlled dangerous substance is hearsay. The certificate may only be admitted if it either falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or particularized guarantees of trustworthiness assure its reliability. State v. Matulewicz sets forth how the business entries exception (N.J.R.E. 803(d)(6) ) or the public records exception (N.J.R.E. 803(c)(8) ) can be used to satisfy the Sixth Amendment's paramount concern - indicia of reliability. (Pp. 7-11) 2. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 provides that a certified laboratory certificate is admissible as evidence of the composition, quality, and quantity of the substance tested so long as the certificate meets certain formal requirements and satisfies the notice and demand procedure; i.e., its proponent provides notice of intent to introduce the certificate at trial and the adversary has an opportunity to contest the validity of the certificate. It is the existence of a contest as to the identity, composition, and/or weight of the tested substance that compels the state to produce a witness or show why such production is unnecessary under the Confrontation Clause. (Pp. 12-17) 3. The burden to demonstrate the admissibility of hearsay testimony always rests on the state. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 does not shift that burden to the defendant and does not require that defendant proffer specific grounds for the objection. The statute only requires that defendant object to the lab certificate and assert that the composition, quality or quantity of the tested substance will be contested at trial. To require otherwise would be to impose an unconstitutional burden on defendant, in effect imposing a barrier, beyond notice, to defendant's exercise of his right to confrontation. That interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 cannot be countenanced. (Pp. 18-25) 4. Defendant in this case filed a timely and adequate notice under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. The state cannot avoid its burden by claiming that it never received the notice of objection where there is credible testimony that the notice was in fact mailed. In addition, the Appellate Division's conclusion that, under the circumstances, the admission of the lab certificate was harmless error under R. 2:10-2 is not supported by the record. Defendant is entitled to a remedy. (Pp. 25-28) The matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in Justice LONG's opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. Argued October 10, 2001 -- Decided January 23, 2002 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Ruth Bove Carlucci, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Carlucci and Sondra Burke, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Mark P. Stalford, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (John A. Kaye, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney). Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by LONG, J. This appeal concerns N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19, a notice and demand statute that provides that upon the satisfaction of certain requirements, a laboratory certificate may be admitted into evidence in a drug case without the presence of the laboratory employee. More particularly, we are called on to determine whether the trial court denied defendant, Timothy Miller, his rights under that statute and under the Constitution when it admitted a laboratory certificate over his objection. The jury convicted Miller of possession of cocaine. His motion for a new trial based on the erroneous admission of the certificate was denied. He was sentenced to a custodial term and appealed. NO. A-94 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED January 23, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz Expert opinion which is included in an admissible hearsay statement shall be excluded if the declarant has not been produced as a witness unless the trial judge finds that the circumstances involved in rendering the opinion, including the motive, duty, and interest of the declarant, whether litigation was contemplated by the declarant, the complexity of the subject matter, and the likelihood of accuracy of the opinion, tend to establish its trustworthiness.