State of New Jersey v. Davonn Daves

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0787-25 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant, v. DAVONN DAVES, Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent. _______________________ Argued September 16, 2026 – Decided October 8, 2026 Before Judges Mayer, Vinci and Zazzali-Hogan. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 19-12-3539. Ashley Brooks, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Ashley Brooks, of counsel and on the briefs). Frank J. Ducoat, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant (Theodore N. Stephens II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Frank J. Ducoat, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM By leave granted, defendant Davonn U. Daves appeals from a July 22, 2025 order, after an in camera review of files provided by the State, limiting disclosure of Internal Affairs (IA) files regarding a particular law enforcement officer. Defendant also appeals from an October 8, 2025 order denying his motion for reconsideration. The State cross-appeals as of right under Rule 2:5-6(b) from a September 3, 2024 order requiring it to turn over all files requested by defendant for an in camera review by the judge. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part. We glean the following facts from the record. Four men were standing in a parking lot on Fabyan Place in Newark on April 6, 2019. Officers with the Newark Police Department were patrolling the area during the mid-afternoon that same day. One officer (the subject officer) detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana. The officers approached the four men. The subject officer claimed he saw defendant talking on a cell phone while sitting inside a red Toyota with the car's doors open. According to the subject officer, defendant was the only A-0787-25 2 person inside the red Toyota. Upon seeing the police, the four men scattered, and the officers gave chase. Upon returning to the red Toyota, the subject officer allegedly saw an unzipped fanny pack on the front passenger-side floorboard. The subject officer claimed to have seen defendant sitting in the car exactly where the fanny pack was located. He explained he saw the butt of a gun protruding from the fanny pack. The subject officer claimed he then seized the fanny pack with the gun and two identification cards belonging to defendant. 1 Defendant disputed the subject officer's version of the facts. According to defendant, he was not seated in the red Toyota, and the doors to the car were closed. After the police officers chased the other members of defendant's group, defendant returned to the parking lot. Defendant saw three officers searching the car's trunk, rear passenger-side door, and front driver-side door. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). In December 2019, a grand jury indicted defendant on this charge. In May 2021, a judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress the handgun. The subject officer testified at the evidentiary hearing. 1 Defendant subsequently stated his sister-in-law lawfully purchased the handgun. A-0787-25 3 Based on the subject officer's testimony, which the judge found credible, the judge denied the suppression motion in a June 6, 2021 order. In June 2024, defendant moved to compel the State to disclose IA files pertaining to the subject officer under State v. Higgs, 253 N.J. 333 (2023). Specifically, defendant requested IA files for the subject officer in four categories: performing illegal searches or engaging in misconduct while conducting a search; failing to properly use body-worn cameras or preserve evidence; making false statements or filing false reports; and engaging in conduct subject to criminal review by Internal Affairs. In support of his Higgs motion, defendant argued the records were relevant to support his defense strategy that the officers lacked probable cause to search the red Toyota, failed to preserve evidence, failed to record the arrest proceedings, and falsified reports to implicate defendant in a crime. Defendant highlighted that the subject officer was the only person who claimed to have seen defendant sitting in the car, stated the doors to the car were open, and saw an unzipped fanny pack in plain view inside the car. In a September 3, 2024 order, the judge partially granted defendant's motion and ordered the State to submit IA files concerning the subject officer . The judge explained that Higgs stated a "new, more transparent protocol" A-0787-25 4 governing discovery in criminal cases. The judge found the facts in this case were similar to the facts cited in Higgs because the State's entire case rested on the officer's veracity. Because the four categories of documents in the subject officer's IA files were deemed by the judge to be "relevant," the judge compelled the State to produce such documents. The State produced over 1,000 pages of documents for the judge's in camera review. In a June 11, 2025 order, the judge determined some of the subject officer's IA files should be disclosed to defendant. However, the judge found the subject officer's IA files related to events after defendant's August 2019 arrest had "no probative value as to [the subject officer's] credibility and [were] of no relevance to show any prior bad acts as they post-date the offense." Regarding the four files that pre-dated defendant's arrest, the judge determined two of the files related to sustained complaints against the subject officer, and the other two files related to complaints against the subject officer which were not sustained. As to the sustained complaints, the judge found those complaints related to negligent parking of a patrol car and were not subject to disclosure because the information was irrelevant to defendant's case. However, the judge determined the subject officer's IA files regarding complaints that were not sustained were "relevant" concerning the subject A-0787-25 5 officer's credibility. The judge directed the State to redact the subject officer's not sustained IA files and provide the material to defendant. A month later, the judge entered a sua sponte order and issued a written decision partially vacating her June 11, 2025 order requiring the State to produce the subject officer's not sustained IA files. After further consideration, in a July 22, 2025 order, the judge determined the not sustained complaints "d[id] not prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of this case." Further, the judge explained allowing the not sustained IA files to be "produced to [d]efendant, and then introduced and hypothetically used at trial, would confuse the jury." The judge did not reverse her prior relevancy determinations. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the not sustained IA files. Additionally, defendant asserted all IA files related to the subject officer, post-dating defendant's arrest date were relevant. The State opposed the motion. After reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing the arguments, for reasons stated on the record on September 25, 2025, the judge denied the reconsideration motion. With respect to the not sustained IA files, she determined "there was insufficient evidence to establish what happened and to assess fault or blame to [the subject officer]" and they could "not be used to establish any behavior, or A-0787-25 6 pattern and practice by [the subject officer] or used to attack his credibility." The judge concluded production of the not sustained IA files "would open the flood gates to a fishing expedition with evidence that is not relevant" and "would lead to jury confusion." The judge memorialized the denial of defendant's reconsideration motion in an October 8, 2025 order. Defendant moved for leave to appeal the July 22, 2025 and October 8, 2025 orders. On November 3, 2025, we granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal. The State cross-appealed as of right from the September 3, 2024 order, arguing the judge erred in granting defendant's motion for an in camera review of the subject officer's IA files. We begin with the State's cross-appeal. The State argues the judge erred in granting an in camera review of the subject officer's IA files because Higgs does not allow "unbridled access" to IA files. 253 N.J. at 537-58. The State claims defendant's request for an in camera review and disclosure of the subject officer's IA files contravened the holding in Higgs and was overly broad. We disagree. Higgs establishes a two-step process when a criminal defendant requests IA files: (1) identification of "the specific category of information" sought; and A-0787-25 7 (2) "the relevance of that information to the defendant's case." Id. at 358. The State argues defendant failed to satisfy these requirements, and defendant's discovery requests constituted an impermissible fishing expedition contrary to Higgs. In Higgs, the Court stated "there [wa]s no logical reason why criminal defendants, whose life and liberty are at stake, should have less access to those records than the general public." Id. at 359. Thus, the Court held "[i]f [a] trial court determines as a threshold matter that the requested information, if present in the [IA] file, would be relevant to the defendant's case—for impeachment purposes or to support the defense's theory, for example—the trial court shall grant the defendant's motion." Ibid. Nothing in Higgs narrowed a criminal defendant's right to seek information contained in IA files. To the contrary, where a criminal defendant can show either the information is relevant for impeachment purposes or relevant to prove their defense to offenses charged, the files should be reviewed in camera by the judge. The decision by the Court in Higgs is consistent with Brady/Giglio2 in that a criminal defendant should be provided with exculpatory 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). A-0787-25 8 and impeachment evidence. Id. at 360 (allowing IA files regarding an officer's past shootings as relevant to the officer's credibility and bias). In instances such as the present case, where the State contends there is no exculpatory or impeachment evidence under Brady/Giglio, it is essential to provide relevant evidence, including possible evidence supporting a defense theory or potential impeachment evidence, from an IA file pertaining to a law enforcement officer. On a Higgs motion, the admissibility of evidence in the subject officer's IA files is not before the motion judge. Rather, the judge reviews the IA files for relevancy under Higgs. Here, prior to any in camera review, the judge required defendant to specify in more detail the categories of information sought from the subject officer's IA files. Defendant did so and explained why his specific categories of requested documents asserted "a relevant nexus to an issue in the case." Higgs, 293 at 358-59. In reviewing defendant's specific categories requesting evidence of the subject officer's unlawful conduct during searches, failure to preserve evidence, false statements, and illegal conduct, the judge found those categories bore a relevant nexus to the unlawful possession of a gun charge. The judge determined the categories addressed "whether [defendant] was actually in his A-0787-25 9 car when [the other police officers] came into the parking lot, whether that car was being constantly surveilled while the officers were going back and forth arresting [another] man, whether the fanny pack was actually in plain view, [and] whether [defendant's] wallet was in the fanny pack." Because the subject officer was the only person who allegedly saw defendant sitting in the red Toyota and claimed to have seen the fanny pack and protruding gun in plain view, the judge concluded the entire case rested on the credibility of the subject officer's testimony. Thus, the judge ordered the State to produce documents for her review in camera in accordance with Higgs. We reject the State's contention that affirming the judge's September 3, 2024 order compelling an in camera review of the subject officer's IA files , would require a review "in every case in which the State would be calling law enforcement witnesses to testify about observations they made." Here, the facts and allegations justifying the need to obtain relevant evidence from the IA files were case specific. We disagree that affirming the judge's order would permit broad "fishing expeditions" by every defendant in every criminal case. We are satisfied defendant provided specific categories of IA records and explained why the records for the specific categories bore a relevant nexus to A-0787-25 10 his defense or for impeachment purposes. 3 Thus, the judge did not err in requiring the State to produce the IA files for in camera review. We turn to defendant's arguments on appeal. Defendant first asserts the judge erred in determining IA files post-dating defendant's arrest were irrelevant and, therefore, not discoverable. The State agrees with defendant that "Higgs does not limit the review of IA files to those which predate the charged offense(s)" and a remand is required if we reject the State's cross-appeal. However, the State does not concede that the subject officer's IA files after the date of defendant's arrest contain relevant evidence. The State merely agrees the matter should be remanded for the judge to conduct a relevance analysis of the subject officer's IA files post-dating defendant's arrest. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for such an in camera review. We next address defendant's argument that the subject officer's not sustained complaints in his IA files were relevant and subject to disclosure under 3 The State argues a prior judge denied defendant's motion to suppress the gun found in the red Toyota and that decision precludes discovery of the subject officer's IA files. However, defendant had yet to request discovery from the State when the suppression motion was decided. Additionally, the denial of defendant's suppression motion did not preclude defendant from presenting evidence that the seized gun did not belong to him or that he was unaware of any gun in the car. A-0787-25 11 Higgs. Defendant argues the judge misapplied her discretion in declining to compel the State to produce these documents. Defendant asserts the IA files were relevant to his argument that the subject officer unlawfully searched the red Toyota and lied about his observations related to finding a gun in the car. Additionally, defendant cited two unpublished decisions finding the subject officer engaged in misconduct. Further, defendant noted the subject officer twice violated police department policy, resulting in major discipline. Based on the findings in those decisions, defendant asserts he had reason to believe the IA records contained relevant evidence for impeachment purposes or to defend against the charged crime. We agree. The Higgs Court did not limit its holding to sustained IA complaints . Rather, as we previously stated, the Higgs Court held records relevant to support a defendant's theory of the case or to impeach a law enforcement officer's credibility and demonstrate bias should be disclosed even if a complaint is exonerated or not sustained. 253 N.J. at 360, 362. Having reviewed the record, we reverse the July 22, 2025 order determining the State need not produce the subject officer's not sustained IA A-0787-25 12 files addressing unlawful conduct while conducting searches.4 Whether that evidence will be admissible at trial is a different issue. We remand for the judge to consider the relevance of subject officer's IA files post-dating defendant's arrest as well as the not sustained finding in the IA files pre-dating defendant's arrest. Because we reverse the July 22, 2025 order, we need not consider defendant's appeal as to the October 8, 2025 order denying his motion for reconsideration. To summarize, we affirm the September 3, 2024 order compelling the State to produce the subject officer's IA files for an in camera review. Further, we reverse the July 22, 2025 order denying disclosure of the two not sustained IA files that pre-dated the charged offense and remand for the judge to determine the relevance of these files. Additionally, we remand for the judge to review the subject officer's IA files post-dating defendant's arrest for relevance. 4 Defendant did not seek leave to appeal the judge's decision declining to compel disclosure of the not sustained finding related to the subject officer's negligent parking of his car. Defendant only challenges the not sustained complaints alleging the subject officer engaged in unlawful conduct while conducting searches. A-0787-25 13 To the extent we have not addressed any arguments by the parties, we conclude the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. We do not retain jurisdiction. A-0787-25 14