On May 26, 2026, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Nirav Patel. The principal issue concerned whether the defendant’s claim of newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial.
Chief Justice Rabner wrote for the Court in relevant part: In May 2019, defendant was indicted for theft by deception. The State asserted defendant stole $750,000 from investors who believed they were buying a 30 percent interest in a World of Beer (WOB) franchise planned for Hoboken even though defendant actually owned only five percent of the franchise. Defendant deposited the investors’ money into an account for his family’s business — Bhagu, Inc. — and a financial crimes investigator for the State testified the money was used to pay defendant’s personal expenses, including payments for a residence and a Porsche; to cover debts for defendant’s family’s restaurant; and to fund checks payable directly to defendant.
A jury found defendant guilty in April 2023. Eight days after the verdict, defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. At an evidentiary hearing, defendant’s sister testified that she was “shocked” by the verdict and first began to examine boxes of documents at their parents’ home days after the trial had ended. She found eleven pages in boxes in the garage that she brought to defendant’s attention. Defendant then began to search his emails using terms including “World of Beer” and “Bhagu”; within an hour, he found allegedly relevant and authentic documents: two WOB franchise agreements signed by defendant and Benjamin Novello, WOB’s chief development officer, that named Bhagu, Inc. as the sole franchisee for the Hoboken WOB, and an agreement stating that defendant had a 30 percent share in an entity called Tapmasters II. Novello testified that he believed the Bhagu agreements were not legitimate. Defendant maintained that the documents were authentic and exonerate him because they establish that he had the authority to sell his shares to investors in the manner he did.
The trial court granted a new trial. The court explained in part that, “considering defendant had invested in approximately seventeen (17) businesses, the evidence was discovered among presumably thousands of documents” and thus was “not discoverable by reasonable diligence at the time of trial.” The Appellate Division affirmed.
It is undisputed that the documents defendant relies on were in his possession leading up to his trial. He also had reason to know they existed because he not only signed some of them but also emailed them to himself. And as an experienced businessperson, he understood that corporate agreements like the ones he found are commonly written down. Despite that, defendant never searched for the documents during the four years from his indictment to trial. Under those circumstances, he cannot establish that he acted with reasonable diligence. Further, the documents raise serious concerns that a fraud on the court has been committed.
The Court’s unanimous statement about fraud will likely encourage further investigation by the Attorney General and/or the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office. Fabricating physical evidence is a fourth-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 28-6. In light of the resources that the State has spent on the trial and two rounds of appeals involved with this case, it is possible that the defendant and/or his sister will be charged with the crime. A failure to charge either of them could lend itself to the inference that the evidence was legitimate and the defendant should have been granted a new trial as a matter of fundamental fairness notwithstanding his perceived lack of diligence. That is the conclusion that the trial court and appellate division reached.
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: Under settled law, a defendant must establish three elements to prevail on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: (1) that the new evidence is material; (2) that it was not discoverable before trial by reasonable diligence; and (3) that it would probably change the jury’s verdict. State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981). Newly discovered evidence must be reviewed with circumspection to ensure it is not the product of fabrication. At the same time, newly discovered evidence can provide a safeguard for individuals who are unjustly convicted of a crime.
Defendants and their attorneys cannot sit back and wait to search for evidence until after a trial has ended. They must act with reasonable dispatch before it begins. The obligation to search with reasonable diligence plainly applies when defendants possess the evidence in question. It also applies when defendants are aware of critical evidence or have reason to know it exists. Whether a defendant’s search was reasonably diligent depends on the circumstances. It does not require defendants to undertake totally exhaustive or superhuman efforts. But defendants who fail to search for evidence in their possession, or evidence they know or reasonably should have known about, will have a difficult time satisfying the second prong of the Carter test. Under the circumstances of this case, it was an abuse of discretion to find the evidence was not discoverable through reasonable diligence before trial.
The Court addresses the serious allegations of fraud related to the two Bhagu franchise agreements defendant submitted after trial. A close examination of the documents tends to support the State’s claim. If a motion for post-conviction relief is filed in this case, the parties and the court should examine with care what may well be a fraud on the court. The Court does not suggest that defense counsel engaged in improper behavior.
