The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel.

State v. Allen is the appeal from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, which was reported at 482 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2025). The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Is the materiality standard for a claim that the prosecutor failed to disclose evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the same as the materiality standard for a claim of newly discovered evidence under State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982), and does defendant satisfy the Brady materiality standard in this matter?” The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding that the materiality standard was not met.

In State v. Lee, the question presented is “Should there have been a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing on defendant’s challenge to the reliability of the State’s expert fingerprint evidence, should the potential jurors have been asked their opinions about the reliability of fingerprint evidence during voir dire, and did two of the State’s witnesses give improper testimony that the same person was depicted in both surveillance videos?” The Appellate Division ruled that “the admission of the fingerprint evidence and testimony about the video evidence, and the [trial] court’s failure to ask potential jurors an open-ended question on their views on fingerprint evidence violated defendant's right to a fair trial,” reversed defendant’s convictions, and remanded for further proceedings.