Opinion ID: 1959182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: constitutional challenges to the statute

Text: Defendant contends that N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(2) is unconstitutional because it allows the State to present evidence that lies outside the rules of evidence in order to rebut other such defense evidence. This result, defendant argues, injects unreliable information into the capital sentencing decision in violation of the eighth amendment of the federal constitution and article I, paragraphs 1 and 12 of the state constitution. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(2)(b) provides in part: If the defendant produces evidence in mitigation which would not be admissible under the rules governing the admission of evidence at criminal trials, the State may rebut that evidence without regard to the rules governing the admission of evidence at criminal trials. The Act narrowly permits the State to exceed the scope of evidentiary rules to rebut evidence presented by the defense that also falls outside the evidentiary rules. The Supreme Court noted in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 190, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2933, 49 L.Ed. 2d 859, 884 (1976) that accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die by a jury of people who may never before have made a sentencing decision. In order to ensure that the jury imposes death only when the individual defendant is deserving of the punishment, the defense is allowed to introduce evidence in the penalty phase, that lies outside the rules of evidence. The State, however, should also be permitted to rebut under the same terms. Otherwise the defense could present a distorted view of defendant to the jury. The New Jersey Capital Act strikes the necessary balance between the prosecution and the defense in order to attain the goal of individualized justice in the capital penalty context. Hence, we conclude that N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(2)(b) is not unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions.