## Facts

- J.E. was arrested and indicted on two counts each of first-degree kidnapping and first-degree aggravated sexual assault involving two alleged victims, C.R. and M.B., based on incidents in January 1991.
- J.E. was released on bail and later entered a drug-rehabilitation program, The Harbor, in June 1991.
- A probation officer later reported to prosecutors that J.E., while at The Harbor, had tested positive for HIV.
- After J.E. was arrested on a failure-to-appear warrant, he was held at the Hudson County Jail pending trial, where additional medical records may have been created.
- The State sought pretrial orders compelling (1) The Harbor and (2) the Hudson County Jail to disclose J.E.’s HIV/AIDS-related testing records; the defense opposed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may order disclosure of HIV-related records from a treatment program when the program was not notified and afforded an opportunity to be represented at the hearing as required by N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9(d).
2. Whether, under New Jersey’s HIV confidentiality statute (N.J.S.A. 26:5C-1 to -14), the court may order limited disclosure of HIV-related jail medical records to warn identifiable alleged sexual-assault victims of possible HIV exposure.

## Decision

- The court denied the State’s motion to compel disclosure from The Harbor because the statutory notice/representation prerequisite was not satisfied.
- The court granted the State’s motion to compel disclosure of HIV-related medical records in the Hudson County Jail’s possession, subject to limitations and safeguards, to permit warnings to the alleged victims.

## Legal Principles

- HIV test results and related records are confidential under N.J.S.A. 26:5C-8 and may be disclosed only as expressly authorized by statute.
- Under N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9(d), a court must deny an application for disclosure unless it makes a specific finding that the relevant program was afforded the opportunity to be represented at the hearing.
- N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9 permits court-ordered disclosure in narrowly defined circumstances, including when nondisclosure presents a clear and imminent danger to an identifiable person or the public.
- Any authorized disclosure must be narrowly tailored to the medical information at issue and the protective purpose, and should not function as general discovery for the prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court strictly enforced statutory procedural protections by denying disclosure from a rehabilitation program that was not given an opportunity to appear, while authorizing limited disclosure of jail-held HIV-related records under the statutory exception to address a serious, imminent health risk to identifiable alleged victims.


State v. J.E., 256 N.J. Super. 348, 606 A.2d 1160 (Law Div. 1992)