New Jersey Rules of Evidence 808

In State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27, 499 A.2d 1363 (1985) the Court noted the following factors to be explored when considering admissibility of a forensic report: Proofs should be adduced to reflect the relative degrees of objectivity and subjectivity involved in the procedure; the regularity with which these analyses are done; the routine quality of each analysis; the presence of any motive to single out a specific analysis for the purpose of rendering an untrustworthy report, and the responsibility of each State Police chemist to make accurate and reliable analyses. 101 N.J. at 30, 499 A.2d 1363. Admissibility must be informed by an evidential record that addresses all relevant factors. Id. at 31, 499 A.2d 1363. Whether the report is sought to be admitted as a business record or a public record "the concern for reliability remains paramount." Ibid. Any concerns about violations of the confrontation clause, such as those expressed by defendant in the present case, are met by a showing that the hearsay is reliable. State In Interest of J.H., 244 N.J. Super. 207, 213, 581 A.2d 1347 (App.Div.1990). The Matulewicz principles were subsequently codified in N.J.R.E. 808, which provides: Expert opinion which is included in an admissible hearsay statement shall be excluded if the declarant has not been produced as a witness unless the trial judge finds that the circumstances involved in rendering the opinion, including the motive, duty, and interest of the declarant, whether litigation was contemplated by the declarant, the complexity of the subject matter, and the likelihood of accuracy of the opinion, tend to establish its trustworthiness.