The NJ Police Chief Magazine Volume 26, Number 6 | Page 29

The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | January 2020
Continued from previous page
appropriate foundation,” the NJSBA wrote. “Such a ruling would provide guidance to trial courts and avoid the errors
committed in the present case.”
A link to remand order at https://pdfhost.io/v/tg7vKW261_Olenowskipdf.pdf
3. Defendant knowingly waived Miranda after Spanish translation State v. A.M. 237 NJ 384 (2019)
HELD: Although the better practice would have been to read aloud the form’s waiver portion to defendant, the Court relies on
the trial court’s well-supported observations and factual findings and reverses the Appellate Division’s judgment.
1. Generally, on appellate review, a trial court’s factual findings in support of granting or denying a motion to suppress must
be upheld when those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. In State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381
(2017), the Court extended that deferential standard of appellate review to “factual findings based on a video recording or
documentary evidence” to ensure that New Jersey’s trial courts remain “the finder of the facts.”
2. To ensure that a person subject to custodial interrogation is adequately and effectively apprised of his rights, the United
States Supreme Court developed the Miranda warnings. The administration of Miranda warnings ensures that a defendant’s
right against self- incrimination is protected in the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation. A waiver of a
defendant’s Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in light of all of the circumstances surrounding the
custodial interrogation. In the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, courts generally rely on factors such as the suspect’s age,
education and intelligence, advice as to constitutional rights, length of detention, whether the questioning was repeated and
prolonged in nature and whether physical punishment or mental exhaustion was involved.
3. The Court reviews the trial court’s factual findings in detail and concludes that the failure of Detective Ramos to read the
entire Miranda rights form aloud did not “improperly shift[] the burden of proof to defendant to alert the interrogating officers
about any difficulty he may be having understanding the ramifications of a legal waiver.” 452 N.J. Super. at 599. To eliminate
questions about a suspect’s understanding, the entire Miranda form should be read aloud to a suspect being interrogated, or
the suspect should be asked to read the entire form aloud. Where that is not done, the suspect should be asked about his or
her literacy and educational background. Nevertheless, in this case, because sufficient credible evidence in the record supports
the trial court’s findings, the Court agrees with the trial court that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary express waiver of his Miranda rights. See S.S., 229 N.J. at 365. The Court
therefore does not reach the issue of implicit waiver.
4. The Court notes that this case demonstrates plainly the importance of videotaping custodial interrogations of suspects by
police.
5. Any defendant has the right to challenge a translation under N.J.R.E. 104(c), which governs pretrial hearings on the
admissibility of a defendant’s statement. Because a defendant has the right to contest a translation of a custodial
interrogation, as was done here, and Rule 104(c) provides the mechanism to do so, the Court rejects the holdings of the
Appellate Division’s concurring opinion. That said, the State, as well as the defendant, is best served by the use of a capable
translator during an interview. (A-76-17)
4. Police can’t detail occupants on noise complaint State v Chisum 236 NJ 530 (2019)
Once the renter of the motel room lowered the volume of the music and the police declined to issue summonses, the police no
longer had any reasonable suspicion that would justify the continued detention of the room’s occupants. Once the noise was
abated, the police no longer had an independent basis to detain the occupants, or a basis to run warrant checks on them.
Such action was unlawful. And because the detention and warrant checks were unlawful, the subsequent pat down of Woodard
was also improper. The judgment of the Appellate Division is therefore reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court
for the withdrawal of defendants’ guilty pleas and further proceedings. (A-35-17/A-36-17; 079823/079835)
5. Guilty finding vacated based on state failure to provide evidence State v. Brown 236 NJ 497 (2019)
The State’s failure to produce nineteen discovery items until one week after the beginning of defendants’ murder trial did
violate defendants’ due process rights under Brady. The Court reaches this conclusion, in part, because the trial court abused
its discretion by excluding admissible impeachment and exculpatory evidence withheld by the State. Though there is no
evidence or allegation that the State acted in bad faith or intentionally in failing to timely produce the discoverable material,
the Court nonetheless vacates defendants’ convictions and remands for a new trial because defendants were deprived of a fair
trial. A-23-17/A-24-17; 079553/079556)
Continued on next page
27