Court Opinion

ID: 9624583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:10:28.428589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:50.576428
License: Public Domain

SLOAN, J.,
concurring.
There is much more to the opinion in State v. Hunt, 1958, 25 NJ 514, 138 A2d 1, than expressed in the majority opinion. Further quotation from that opinion, *438which we approved in State v. Foster, 1965, 242 Or 101, 407 P2d 901, should be helpful to the trial courts when confronted with the commonplace request made in this case:
“* * * We are concerned here only with the defendant’s application dui’ing the trial for production of the notes made by the State’s witness Bates [a police officer], in order that they might be used during his cross-examination for the purpose of testing the credibility and accuracy of the testimony given on his direct examination. It is difficult to see what plausible objection may be advanced to such use of the notes. Cross-examination is the most valuable safeguard that has been discovered in the judicial search for truth, and if cross-examination is to be at all effective it must have wide latitude in the testing of the recollection and fidelity of the witness. It seems to us that, in the instant matter, every consideration of justice and fairness dictated that the notes of the witness Bates bearing on the subject of his direct examination be made available to the defendant for use in cross-examination. * * State v. Hunt, supra, 25 NJ at p 524, 138 A2d at p 6.
“* * " The notes were made by Bates when the defendant’s statements were very fresh in his mind and even if they had never been used to refresh his recollection they would have been highly relevant to his cross-examination. After the defense had inspected them it might have found them to be simply corroborative of the oral testimony given by Bates before the jury. In such event, no one would have been harmed by the inspection. On the other hand, it might have found significant omissions, different interpretations, or even affirmative inconsistencies, which when pursued, might have brought along a truer and more accurate portrayal before the jury. * * State v. Hunt, supra, 25 NJ at p 530, 138 A2d at p 10.
*439In the instant ease it was apparent that the notes of the officer were readily available and could have been produced in a few minutes time. There was nothing unreasonable about the request.
There were contradictions in the testimony of the complaining witness and that of the police officer. The contradictions might have been explained if the notes had been produced. If the notes were of no value, as expressed in the quotation above, no possible harm would have resulted.
I concur in the result because I have doubts that the error was prejudicial in this ease.