Title: State v. Ceesay Simbara
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-110-01
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 2002

In this case, defendant, Ceesay Simbara, was arrested in Paterson on June 21, 1999, and subsequently indicted for third-degree possession of CDS, third-degree possession with intent to distribute, third-degree possession with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school, and fourth-degree possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, the State proffered a State Police laboratory certificate to demonstrate the illicit nature and the weight of the substance found in defendant=s possession. The court held a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the certificate would be admissible at trial. Counsel presented the parties= arguments; no witnesses were called. Defendant asserted that the State had failed to establish the type of laboratory analysis undertaken, that the analyzing equipment was working properly, and the nature of the equipment used by the analyst. The State contended that the certificate indicated the type and weight of CDS possessed by defendant and adequately described the tests performed on the substance. Accordingly, the State argued, the certificate met the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19b and was admissible. The trial court found that the certificate as proffered failed to explain the type of analysis performed, the nature and condition of equipment used, the result of each test, and that it failed to demonstrate adequately the conclusions of the analyst. The court ruled the proffered certificate to be inadmissible. The State=s motion for leave to appeal was granted by the Appellate Division, which reversed the determination of the trial court. Perceiving the trial court=s application of the statute as too narrow and too rigid, the Appellate Division declared that a defendant has the right to require the State to produce the laboratory analyst as a witness subject to cross-examination unless the certificate is found to comply with N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. The Supreme Court granted defendant=s motion for leave to appeal and granted amicus curiae status to the Attorney General. HELD : The State must produce for cross-examination the laboratory employee or analyst who prepared the certificate proffered by the State pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 to establish the nature and quantity of an alleged controlled dangerous substance whenever a defendant timely invokes the right to confront that witness in a challenge to the certificate. 1. The form of certificate proffered by the State in this case, when considered with the supporting data and other information the Court assumes the State has made available to defendant, sufficiently conforms to the statute. The Attorney General=s recent directive to prosecutors and laboratory directors appears to reflect a reasonable interpretation of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. (pp. 6-12) 2. The State=s compliance with N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 does not by itself make the certificate admissible. The laboratory certificate in a drug case is singularly important in determining whether a defendant will be imprisoned or set free. Because of a defendant=s rights under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who makes a timely challenge to the certificate is entitled to confront the preparer of the certificate through cross-examination before the trier of fact. (pp. 12-16) 3. The trial court is to afford defendant the opportunity to renew his challenge to the certificate in view of the supplemental information furnished under the Attorney General s directive. If defendant does not contest the certificate, the certificate should be admitted at trial. If he contests the certificate, he shall be permitted to cross-examine the analyst. (pp. 16-17) 4. Because the laboratory tests and instruments used in the tests have been standardized for some time and are recognized generally as routine and reliable, it is expected that a trial court addressing a broad challenge to the tests or instruments would take judicial notice, consistent with N.J.R.E. 201, of relevant published articles or studies or would rely on prior case law that might dispose of the challenge. (p. 17) The JUDGMENT of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join in JUSTICE VERNIERO=s opinion. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CEESAY SIMBARA, Defendant-Appellant. Argued October 21, 2002 Decided December 16, 2002 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 348 N.J. Super. 213 (2002). Ruth Bove Carlucci, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Carlucci and Marcia H. Blum, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the letter briefs). Jane E. Hendry, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (James F. Avigliano, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney). Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Peter C. Harvey, Acting Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. We granted leave to appeal, 172 N.J. 174 (2002), to consider the admissibility of a laboratory certificate proffered by the State to demonstrate the nature and weight of an alleged controlled dangerous substance (CDS) possessed by defendant. The Appellate Division held that the form was admissible, suggesting that all such certificates are admissible so long as the State complies with N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. Generally, that statute provides a procedural framework within which trial courts may admit certain certificates into evidence without live testimony of the laboratory employees or analysts who have prepared them. Because we conclude that the State is obligated to produce the certificate s preparer whenever a defendant timely invokes his or her right to confront that witness, we are compelled to reverse. [N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19b.] In State v. Miller, we recently summarized the history and purpose of the statute, which need not be repeated at length here. 170 N.J. 417, 428-431 (2002). Suffice it to say that the statute provides a procedural framework within which a trial court may admit into evidence in a drug case an uncontested certificate containing the information set forth in the portion of the statute cited above. Id. at 428. The statute requires a prosecutor to give notice to a defendant of the State s intent to proffer a laboratory certificate at least twenty days in advance of trial. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c. Within that same timeframe, the prosecutor also must disclose to the accused all reports relating to the analysis in question, including a copy of the certificate. Id. Defendants who intend to object to the admission of a certificate must provide prosecutors with notice of that objection and the grounds for the objection within ten days of receiving the State s initial notice. Id. The statute also states: Whenever a notice of objection is filed, admissibility of the certificate shall be determined not later than two days before the beginning of the trial. A proffered certificate shall be admitted in evidence unless it appears from the notice of objection and specific grounds for that objection that the composition, quality, or quantity of the substance submitted to the laboratory for analysis will be contested at trial. A failure to comply with the time limitations regarding the notice of objection required by this section shall constitute a waiver of any objections to the admission of the certificate. [Id. (emphasis added).] Defendant asserts that initially the prosecutor did not convey any notes prepared by the analyst or the underlying data related to the test results contained in the certificate. If so, that omission would have been inconsistent with the requirement imposed on a prosecutor to provide an accused with a copy of not only the certificate, but all reports relating to the analysis in question[.] N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c. In his brief to this Court, the Attorney General acknowledges that the statute requires prosecutors to provide defendants with copies of the certificates and all related underlying materials. Consistent with that acknowledgement, the Attorney General submitted as part of his brief his recent directive to prosecutors and laboratory directors. The Attorney General s directive states, in part: [W]hen and if the prosecutor decides in a particular case to file a formal notice of intent to use a laboratory certificate as trial evidence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19, the laboratory must compile and transmit to the prosecutor a copy of all reports or other documents prepared by or in the possession of the laboratory that pertain to the examination of the controlled dangerous substance in question. In these circumstances, the documents that must be transmitted to the prosecuting agency by the laboratory would include: a copy of the request for examination of evidence; all reports and notes prepared by the scientist; the underlying data used to reach conclusions concerning the composition and quantity of the substance submitted for examination, and any graphs, charts or computer printouts that describe the results of any manual or automated test of the substance submitted for examination. If the prosecutor intends to proffer a sworn laboratory certificate at trial pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19, the prosecutor must, pursuant to the literal requirements of the statute, convey to defense counsel a copy of the certificate along with all of the foregoing documents. In addition, in order to ensure that laboratory certificates are admissible as evidence at trial, forensic laboratories must make available for inspection by defense counsel all manuals, standard operating procedures or written protocols developed or relied upon by the laboratory concerning the forensic tests at issue or concerning the use, operation and maintenance of the equipment used to perform the analyses. [Memorandum from Peter C. Harvey, First Assistant Attorney General, to County Prosecutors at 1-2 (Aug. 22, 2002).] We are not called on to determine whether the Attorney General s directive has set forth an exhaustive list of documents required under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. That said, the directive appears to reflect a reasonable interpretation of the statute s requirements. We also assume that consistent with his supervisory authority, the Attorney General expects prosecutors to follow the directive uniformly in all counties. See N.J.S.A. 52:17B-104 (providing Attorney General with supervisory authority over county prosecutors); State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1, 24-25 (1998) (mandating that prosecutors uniformly comply with Attorney General s directive regarding negotiated pleas in drug cases). Turning to the actual certificate, it generally tracks the statutory requirements. It describes, albeit in shorthand fashion, the type of analyses or tests performed on the specimen found on defendant, e.g., Color Tests and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. It further discloses the combined result achieved from those tests, e.g., that the tests revealed that the specimen was cocaine weighing 9.51 [grams]. As for the analyst s training and experience, the form discloses that Alice P. Nahas has been employed by the State forensic laboratory for twelve years, has earned a Bachelor of Science degree, and has qualified as an expert witness on forty-two occasions in municipal court and before the Superior Court in New Jersey. It also contains a statement that the analyst s training and experience is fairly and accurately documented in a curricul[um] vitae which is on file with the Prosecutor s Office and incorporated by reference herein[.] Additionally, the form bears the signature of the analyst and contains a certification that she is the person who performed analyses, reviewed results and made the conclusions set forth in the above laboratory report[.] Lastly, the certificate appears to have been executed properly under oath before a notary public of New Jersey. As noted, however, the form does not state explicitly the nature and condition of the equipment used. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19b. Defendant argues that the certificate must be excluded on the basis of that omission. Moreover, defendant echoes the trial court in arguing that the bare references to Color Tests and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry are impermissibly vague and skeletal and, therefore, inconsistent with the statute. We disagree. We assume that by now the prosecutor has furnished or made available to defendant all supporting data and other forms of information, including the analyst s individual notes, graphs, standard procedures, instrumental parameters, and the criteria for analysis, as set forth in the Attorney General s directive. (Indeed, much of the relevant material appears to be attached to the Attorney General s brief, which the State presumably served on defendant.) Under those circumstances, the form proffered by the State sufficiently conforms to the statute when considered in concert with that other information. The Attorney General submits that if the certificate is modified to include all the information sought by defendant or suggested by the trial court, then the form itself would become unintelligible to the lay juror, thereby defeating the purpose of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. We agree. The statute s purpose, as suggested earlier, is to establish an efficient process by which the State may place before the trier of fact in a drug case an uncontested certificate following sufficient notice to an accused. We must interpret the statute sensibly and with that purpose in mind. In so doing, we hold that the certificate here satisfied the essential elements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 when considered in concert with its underlying data and the other information that the prosecutor is required to furnish to the accused in all cases. NO. A-110 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CEESAY SIMBARA, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED December 16, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Verniero CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY