State v. Higgs
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-28-21 |
| Parties | State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Andre Higgs, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Argued October 24, 2022
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division
John J. McMahon argued the cause for appellant (Law Office of John J. McMahon, attorneys; John J. McMahon, of counsel and on the briefs, and Lois De Julio, on the briefs).
Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor argued the cause for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor attorney; Matthew E. Hanley, of counsel and on the briefs).
Michael R. Noveck, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Public Defender of New Jersey (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Michael R Noveck, of counsel and on the briefs).
Dillon Reisman argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Dillon Reisman, Jeanne LoCicero, and Alexander Shalom, on the brief).
CJ Griffin argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin and Chanel J. Hudson, on the brief).
Sundeep Iyer, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Alec Schierenbeck, Deputy State Solicitor, and Steven K. Cuttonaro, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
PIERRE-LOUIS, J., writing for a unanimous Court.
In this appeal, the Court considers several rulings related to discovery and the admissibility of evidence arising from defendant Andre Higgs's trial for the murder of Latrena May.
Defendant and May had been involved in a romantic relationship and shared a child. On the evening of May's death, defendant and May were arguing on her front porch when East Orange Police Officer Kemon Lee approached them after hearing a woman's voice shout "police" several times while he patrolled the area.
Officer Lee testified that shortly after exiting his patrol car, he asked May to come down from the porch, but defendant began shooting May. Officer Lee returned fire and shot defendant several times. Defendant testified to a different version of events. Defendant stated that May pulled out a gun during their argument, and defendant took the gun away from her. According to defendant, he tried to surrender as Officer Lee approached, but the officer fired his weapon at defendant which led to the involuntary discharge of the gun in defendant's hand, causing May's death.
Prior to trial, defendant sought access to Officer Lee's internal affairs file, which included prior incidents of the officer firing his weapon while on duty. Defendant argued that the prior incidents were relevant to his defense that Officer Lee fired first. The trial court denied access to the file. The State then sought to bar defendant from cross-examining Officer Lee about any prior shootings and the trial court granted the State's motion. Lastly, the State sought to impeach defendant on cross-examination with his prior indictable convictions. Four judgments of conviction were over 20 years old at the time of trial (including convictions for aggravated assault, weapon possession, and CDS distribution and possession), and one (for weapon possession) was over 14 years old. The trial court granted the State's request, finding that a disorderly persons offense seven years prior to the trial was sufficient to "bridge the gap" between the old convictions and the present matter.
At trial, video from Officer Lee's dashcam was played for the jury during the testimony of Officer Lee, defendant, and Detective Kevin Green, who was not present at the scene of the shooting. Detective Green testified, over objection, that he believed the dashcam footage depicted a gun in defendant's back waistband as Officer Lee's patrol car approached.
Defendant was convicted of murder, among other offenses, and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no error with the trial court's rulings.
The Court granted certification, 248 N.J. 595 (2021), on the three issues raised in defendant's petition: (1) whether the trial court erred in not allowing defendant access to Officer Lee's internal affairs records and not allowing defense counsel to cross-examine Officer Lee regarding his prior on-duty shootings; (2) whether it was error pursuant to N.J.R.E. 701 to allow the lay opinion testimony of Detective Green regarding the image on the dashcam video; and (3) whether defendant's remote convictions were improperly admitted for impeachment purposes.
HELD: The Court reverses as to all three issues and remands for a new trial. The Court prescribes a framework for trial courts to assess requests for access to internal affairs records and provides guidance for the application of that framework on remand in this case. Because the defense argues Officer Lee discharged his firearm first, defense counsel could potentially be allowed to explore Officer Lee's history of past shootings on cross-examination. On remand, defendant will be entitled to access the internal affairs file as outlined in the Court's opinion, and that evidence may be used to cross-examine Officer Lee subject to any objections pursuant to N.J.R.E. 403 or 404(b). Detective Green's testimony was based entirely on his lay opinion from watching the video, which was impermissible under N.J.R.E. 701. The video was already in evidence, so the jury was able to view the video and determine for themselves what the video showed. Finally, applying the factors in N.J.R.E. 609(b)(2), it was error for the trial court to admit defendant's remote convictions because the State did not meet its burden of establishing that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect of admitting the old convictions.
1. The Court reviews the rules and case law governing discovery in criminal cases to determine whether they require the disclosure of police internal affairs records to a criminal defendant in pretrial discovery. The Court also takes note that, in 1991, the Attorney General, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (IAPP) which established a comprehensive set of procedures to address complaints of police misconduct. The IAPP carries the force of law for State and local law enforcement. In 1996, the Legislature passed N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, which requires all law enforcement agencies to "adopt and implement guidelines which shall be consistent with the guidelines governing the [IAPP]." Each iteration of the IAPP has addressed the confidentiality of the disciplinary process and detailed the limited circumstances in which the records of an internal affairs investigation could be released. The current IAPP allows for disclosure in certain limited circumstances -- for example, at the direction of the county prosecutor or the Attorney General, or pursuant to a court order. In 2020, in a significant shift in practice, the Attorney General mandated the public identification of all officers subject to "major discipline," which includes termination, a reduction in rank, or a suspension of more than five days. Even more recently, the Court held that although internal affairs records are exempt from disclosure under the Open Public Records Act, those records can and should be disclosed under the common law right of access when interests that favor disclosure outweigh concerns for confidentiality. (pp. 22-27)
2. In the present case, defendant sought access to Officer Lee's internal affairs file to support defendant's theory that Officer Lee fired his firearm first, which led defendant to involuntarily fire the gun in his hand. Defendant was denied that access after the trial court conducted an in camera review and determined that the records were not relevant to the case. To ensure that defendants in criminal trials are provided with the discovery necessary to adequately prepare for trial, defendants must be allowed, under certain circumstances, to access documents in law enforcement's internal affairs files. That does not, however, mean that defendants should have unbridled access to internal affairs records. To appropriately balance the important interests involved, the Court adopts the following procedure:
Going forward, a defendant who seeks discovery of information from an internal affairs file must first file a motion with the trial court requesting an in camera review of that file. The motion shall identify the specific category of information the defendant seeks and the relevance of that information to the defendant's case. A general allegation that the defendant is in search of information relevant to a law enforcement officer's credibility for impeachment purposes would be insufficient to obtain review of the file. In order for a trial court to grant a motion to conduct an in camera review of an internal affairs file, the defendant must point to a specific category or type of evidence and assert that the evidence, if present in the file, has a relevant nexus to an issue in the case. The Court anticipates that many defendants will be in a position to meet the relevancy standard and declines to adopt the more stringent "peculiar evidence" standard articulated over two decades ago in State v. Harris, 316 N.J.Super. 384 (App. Div. 1998). If the trial court determines as a threshold matter that the requested information, if present in the internal affairs file, would be relevant to the defendant's case -- for impeachment purposes or to support the defense's theory, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial