State v. Feaster, 184 N.J. 235

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the prosecutor substantially interfered with a key witness's decision to testify at the defendant's post-conviction relief hearing by implying that the witness could face perjury charges if he recanted his trial testimony. The Court concluded that this interference violated the defendant's state constitutional due process and compulsory process rights. The Court also explained that testimony given on direct examination should not be considered when the witness invokes the Fifth Amendment to avoid cross-examination.

Holdings

1. The prosecutor's statement that there would be 'considerations' if Sadlowski testified consistently with his recantation substantially interfered with his decision to testify for defendant, even though the statement was conversational, indirect, and made in good faith.
2. The prosecutor's interference violated defendant's rights to due process and compulsory process under the New Jersey Constitution, and the violation was not harmless.
3. When a witness gives direct testimony concerning a matter at the heart of a defendant's case and then invokes the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent cross-examination, the court should strike the testimony.
4. The case must be remanded for a PCR hearing at which the State may grant Sadlowski testimonial use immunity. If the State declines to do so and Sadlowski continues to invoke the privilege, the PCR court must disregard Sadlowski's trial testimony and determine whether its absence would probably create reasonable doubt requiring a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor substantially interfered with a defense witness's decision to testify by indicating that the witness would face penal consequences if he testified consistently with his recantation.
2. Whether that interference violated defendant's state constitutional due process and compulsory-process rights.
3. What remedy was required when prosecutorial interference made a critical defense witness unavailable at a PCR hearing.
4. Whether the PCR court could consider testimony given by a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment to prevent cross-examination.

Disposition

remanded