The court takes this opportunity to clarify the legal principles that govern motions for a new trial based on evidence not previously available to the defense. Such motions, the court explains, can arise in two distinct circumstances: (1) where the prosecutor was in possession of the "new" evidence but failed to disclose it to the defense—a discovery violation—and (2) where the defense discovers the new evidence through its own efforts. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court addressed the first situation. In State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court considered both situations and devised what has been applied as a general test for resolving newly discovered evidence motions.
Defendant contends the prosecutor committed a discovery violation by not disclosing that its key trial witness had accepted a plea agreement tendered by the prosecutor in an unrelated matter eight years before defendant's murder trial. The court explains that the separate multi-prong tests set forth in Brady and Carter overlap but are not identical, which can lead to confusion. The court considers whether the trial judge ultimately reached the correct conclusion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial notwithstanding that the judge did not cite to the governing precedent, Brady.
The court emphasizes that the Carter and Brady tests share a common element: whether the jury's verdict would have been different had the defense been aware of the new evidence before trial. The question of "materiality" under both Carter and Brady is essentially a form of harmless error analysis. Further, the court explains, while the two tests start from a different factual predicate, they converge on the fact-sensitive question of whether the trial outcome would have been different if the defense had been aware of the new evidence before trial. The court further holds there is no practical difference between the materiality/harmless error elements set forth in the Brady and Carter formulations. Thus, the court reasons, the motion judge's findings under Carter allow it to evaluate the materiality element of the Brady test, which requires reversal of a conviction only where there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence suppressed by the prosecutor been timely disclosed to the defense, the trial result would have been different. The court concludes that in this application, the newly discovered information would not have led to a different trial result.
The court also addresses defendant's contention the motion judge abused discretion and violated defendant's due process and compulsory process rights by refusing to enforce a subpoena to the Crime Stoppers program concerning possible reward payments to the State's witness. The court concludes the motion judge did not provide adequate reasons explaining his decision. The court thus remands for the motion judge to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.