255 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We do not read those three cross-examination questions or one objection posed by the State as an assault on defense counsel. On the contrary, in each instance, the prosecution properly sought to question a witness in respect of materials either recently disclosed or not disclosed at all to the State. Therefore, to the extent that line of questioning or objection raises credibility issues concerning recent fabrication or bias, interest or prejudice, see generally N.J.R.E. 607 (“[A]ny party including the party calling the witness may examine the witness and introduce extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of credibility____”), the questions and objection are proper. See, e.g., State v. Silva, 131 N.J. 438, 442, 621 A.2d 17 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44, 127, 803 A.2d
holding that the prosecutor acted improperly when he misstated that the key witness had not come forward until the day before trial when the witness had actually come forward over two months before trial holding that if a witness appears to know of the charges and would naturally be expected to have come forward with the alibi testimony the witness may be crossexamined about those circumstances of nondisclosure holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources recognizing the witnesss failure to come forward promptly may impact the credibility of the witness