STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMILIO RODRIQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion, reported at 264 N.J.Super. 261, 624 A.2d 605 (1993).

O’HERN, J.,

dissenting.

I believe that Rule 3:13-2, which allows the videotaped deposition of a material witness to be used at trial in order to “prevent manifest injustice,” does not contemplate the partial use of such deposition testimony (live direct examination; taped cross-examination) except in the rarest of circumstances. To permit such splitting of the testimony of a key state witness in a relatively short criminal trial creates, rather than prevents, manifest injustice. For affirmance—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI, and STEIN—6.

Dissenting—Justice O’HERN—1.