Justice Noriega continued in relevant part: The Special Adjudicator filed a comprehensive 370-page report detailing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Court summarizes. The parties largely agree with the Special Adjudicator’s findings and conclusions. Relevant to this appeal, there are two areas of disagreement: (1) the availability of Exhibit S 152 — a 180-page Excel Spreadsheet that sets forth solution changes and calibrations on all Alcotest Instruments in New Jersey from November 5, 2008 through June 30, 2016 — and (2) the proper procedure for challenging a prior Dennis-affected DWI conviction when facing enhanced sentencing on a subsequent DWI. The State asks the Court to accept the Special Adjudicator’s factual findings and recommendations with two exceptions: (1) Exhibit S-152’s availability should be limited; and (2) the validity of a prior DWI should be pursued through PCR in the municipal court where the prior conviction occurred and not be litigated at sentencing for a successive DWI. The State agrees with the Special Adjudicator that prior to seeking an enhanced DWI sentence, it must inform defendants “that a prior DWI conviction it intends to” rely on “was potentially affected by Dennis’s malfeasance.” The State contends, however, that this notification obligation extends only to cases confirmed to be Dennis-affected cases, not those in which there is no known evidence that would justify overturning convictions on PCR.
The Court now resolves those limited areas in which the parties could not agree regarding the implementation of the Special Adjudicator’s findings and legal conclusions: (1) the proper procedure for challenging a prior Dennis-affected DWI conviction when facing enhanced sentencing on a subsequent DWI; and (2) the appropriate availability of Exhibit S-152. During the initial conference for a DWI matter, the court shall inquire whether the pending matter represents the first or subsequent DWI for a defendant. If the record reflects that the defendant has a prior conviction for DWI, the prosecutor must inform the court, defendant, and defense counsel whether it occurred between the critical dates of November 5, 2008 and April 2016. If so, the court must then schedule a discovery conference for the State to fulfill its obligation and provide to the defendant and counsel, as well as the court, discovery indicating whether the defendant is a Dennis-affected defendant. The prosecutor will accomplish this by using the summons number from the earlier offense to search Exhibit S-152, which will be redacted to include only non-personal identifying information.
It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason for the State to object to the disclosure of the spreadsheet document that would disclose whether Trooper Dennis was involved with a prior DWI conviction. Putting the burden on the defense to otherwise uncover evidence that is within the State’s position seems inconsistent with the State’s duty to pursue justice as opposed to convictions.
