In State v. Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. 283, 615 A.2d 1293 (Law Div.1992), the trial court dismissed an indictment charging the defendant with sexual assault and related charges. The alleged victim testified before the grand jury that the defendant had forcibly penetrated her vaginally and anally during an assault that lasted some ninety minutes. Id. at 285, 615 A.2d 1293. She claimed to have fought the defendant throughout the assault. Ibid. During her testimony, she was asked whether she had been taken to the hospital after the assault and gynecologically examined. Id. at 286, 615 A.2d 1293. She responded simply in the affirmative. Ibid. In fact, the assistant prosecutor possessed the results of the medical examination performed on the victim at the hospital which demonstrated no evidence of any physical or sexual assault. Id. at 285-87, 615 A.2d 1293. Recognizing numerous federal cases dealing with the obligation of the government to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, and a well-recognized split among the federal circuits, the court noted "there (were) no reported New Jersey case directly on point." Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. at 287, 615 A.2d 1293. Relying on independent New Jersey Constitutional grounds, the court dismissed the indictment. Id. at 289-90, 615 A.2d 1293. The Court concluded that the victim's reference to the medical examination, combined with the withholding of the "highly exculpatory" medical report, "skillfully misled" the grand jury into believing that it corroborated her testimony. Id. at 290, 615 A.2d 1293. The court found the failure to present the medical report was the equivalent of the "intentional subversion" of the grand jury process. Id. at 290-91.