In the landmark decision of State v. Chun, New Jersey’s Supreme Court required the government to turnover specifically defined categories of information during discovery in a drunk driving case. In a case titled State v. Maricic, an appellate panel recently reviewed a case where a drunk/DWI driving defendant sought, among other things, the downloaded results from the Alcotests and information relating to the cell drift algorithm. The municipal court judge denied the defendant’s application.  That decision was affirmed by the Law Division.  On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed both courts.

In framing its opinion the Appellate Division readily recognize that defendants in all drunk/DWI driving cases are entitled to all discovery listed in R. 3:13–3(a), as well as other information that addresses whether the breathalyzer was in proper working order at the time of defendant’s arrest. It also noted that the philosophy attending pretrial discovery was to allow the fact-finder to have all relevant information available, so as to reach the truth.

The court specifically rejected the government’s contention that in order to be responsible to produce the discovery material sought in the case, defendant had to prove that either the testing process or the equipment was flawed.  It also contended that the defendant’s specific discovery was not found within the list of so-called “foundational document” identified by the special master who assisted the Supreme Court in rendering the Chun decision.  That argument was rejected as well.