Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. SEVERINO RAMOS AND MANUEL HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1979-07-11
Citations: 169 N.J. Super. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. SEVERINO RAMOS AND MANUEL HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. SEVERINO RAMOS AND MANUEL HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANTS
Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division
Decided July 11, 1979.
Criminal action.
Mr. Leslie Marm, Assistant Prosecutor, for the State of Yew Jersey (Mr. Donald 8. Goburn, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Mr. Michael Gritchley for defendant Severino Ramos (Messrs Gritchley & Boche, attorneys).
Mr. Larry Bronson for defendant Manuel Hernandez.

Opinion:
Joseph F. Walsh, J. S. C.
Defendants, in a pretrial motion in a murder case, moved for disclosure of the charges against the State's witness who is a juvenile.
That defendants have such a right is without doubt following Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974), and a subsequent refinement by the courts of our State in State v. Hare, 139 N. J. Super. 150 (App. Div. 1976).
The State adopts the position that the rights of defendants are limited to the giving of a "probation status" report concerning the witness and that under no circumstances are they required to disclose the charge upon which that probation is based.
This court is well aware that the revelation of the charge in no way can be utilized to impeach the credibility of the juvenile. However, this court concludes that the effective cross-examination requirement established in Davis v. Alaska, supra, cannot be sensibly met without permitting examination not only of the "probation status" of the juvenile but also of the charge upon which it is based.