State of New Jersey v. Thomas J. DiNapoli

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey holds that a defendant’s proposed expert testimony concerning an intervening cause of death is relevant to causation under the first prong of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c) in a vehicular homicide prosecution. The Court further holds that an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing is not required to determine the relevance or admissibility of the proposed expert testimony, and that inconsistencies among expert reports are for the jury to assess. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the matter is remanded.

Holdings

1. In a vehicular-homicide prosecution proceeding under prong one of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c), expert testimony disputing whether the defendant's conduct resulted in a fatal automobile accident is relevant to whether the victim's actual death was within the risk of which the defendant was aware.
2. A defendant may introduce evidence challenging the causal chain advanced by the State under prong one, including evidence of an intervening cause, even if the evidence does not defeat but-for causation.
3. An N.J.R.E. 104 hearing is not necessary to determine the relevance of the proposed expert opinions where all experts offer testimony relevant to the prong-one causation inquiry; inconsistencies among their reports go to credibility and factual resolution for the jury.
4. When N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c) applies, the State must disclose the causation prong on which it will rely at the earliest possible stage, and no later than the pretrial conference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether expert testimony challenging the causal connection between the defendant's reckless driving and the victim's death is relevant in a vehicular-homicide prosecution proceeding solely under prong one of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c).
2. Whether a defendant may introduce evidence of an intervening cause under prong one even when the evidence does not dispute but-for causation.
3. Whether an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing is required to determine the relevance and admissibility of the proposed expert testimony.
4. Whether the State must disclose before trial which causation prong under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c) it intends to pursue.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded