State in Interest of G.C.
| Decision Date | 02 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1615-18T1 |
| Parties | STATE IN THE INTEREST OF G.C., a Juvenile. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket Nos. FJ-13-1006-18, FJ-13-1120-18, and FJ-13-1145-18.
Charles Moriarty, LLC, attorneys for appellant G.C. (Charles M. Moriarty, of counsel; Timothy C. Moriarty, of counsel and on the brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Carey J. Huff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Juvenile defendant G.C. (Greg)1 appeals from a final disposition order entered following a bench trial finding he committed the following acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult: second-degree sexual assault by force or coercion, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1), and first-degree endangering the welfare of a child through the possession of child pornography, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(3). Based on our review of the record, we find there was substantial credible evidence presented at trial supporting the court's adjudications and disposition order, but we are also convinced the trial court erred by failing to conduct a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing on Greg's request to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the seizure of his cell phone and by failing to make findings of fact supporting its denial of his request to suppress the evidence. Because the judge who tried the case has retired, we affirm the adjudications and disposition order and remand for a hearing and determination of the suppression of evidence request, and a vacation of the adjudications and disposition order and a retrial in the event the court determines the evidence seized from the cell phone should have been suppressed.
To provide context for our discussion of the arguments presented on appeal, we summarize the pertinent facts. In the late afternoon on May 31, 2018, seventeen-year-old I.B. (Ida) returned to her home and reported to her twenty-eight-year-old sister C.B. (Claire) that Greg raped her earlier in the day. Claire called the police, and she and Ida's mother took Ida to a local hospital, where Ida was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner and interviewed by Neptune City detectives Thomas Sheehan and Richard Johnson. As a result of their discussion with Ida, the detectives obtained her consent to take her cell phone and examine its contents. The detectives accessed Ida's phone and took photographs of a series of text messages she reported were exchanged between her and Greg prior to the alleged sexual assault. Arrangements were made for Ida to make a formal statement at the police station the following day.
After Ida provided a formal statement, and the detectives decided to charge and arrest Greg for sexual assault. Just before 9:00 p.m. on June 1, 2018, the detectives arrested Greg at his home and transported him to the police station. His mother separately went to the police station, stayed in the lobby fora period of time before leaving, and informed the detectives Greg had a lawyer.2 Greg was charged in a juvenile complaint with second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1), and third-degree criminal coercion, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5.3 Greg was never advised of his Miranda4 rights.
At the time of Greg's arrest at his home, detectives Sheehan and Johnson were aware Greg's cell phone might contain text messages relevant to the investigation because they had seen purported text messages between Ida and Greg on Ida's cell phone. They needed Greg's phone to confirm the messages on Ida's phone were actually sent and received from Greg's phone. As the detectives escorted Greg out of his house, detective Sheehan saw Greg give his mother a cell phone, but the detectives took no action to seize it.
Detective Johnson testified he had an opportunity to obtain a search warrant for the phone, but he did not obtain one. At around 9:30 p.m., he left the police station and went to Greg's home to obtain the phone. When Greg's father answered the door, detective Johnson identified himself as a police officer and told Greg's father he "needed to retrieve the phone . . . and that [he was] going to seize it as evidence." Greg's father invited detective Johnson inside, suggested the phone was probably in Greg's bedroom, brought detective Johnson upstairs to the bedroom, and searched for the cell phone while detective Johnson stood nearby. Greg's father did not find the phone in the bedroom.
Detective Johnson testified that while Greg's father looked for the phone in the bedroom, Greg's mother arrived at the home. At some point, she retrieved the cell phone from a planter on the back porch and gave it to detective Johnson.5 He brought the phone to the police station and placed it into evidence.
The detectives advised Greg his cell phone had been seized as evidence and they would seek a search warrant for it and search the phone using Cellebrite technology.6 Greg was given a piece of paper and a pen, and the detectives asked him to write down his cell phone passcode. Detective Sheehan testified that, even if Greg did not give them the passcode, they would still attempt to search the cell phone when they obtained a warrant. The detectives did not use a consent to search form, explaining they had no intention of searching the phone without a warrant.
Greg was permitted to call his mother. After the call, he was left alone and wrote down the passcode to his phone on a piece of paper, which he gave to detective Johnson. At trial, Greg testified the detectives did not threaten him and he wrote down the passcode voluntarily, but he also claimed he was unaware he could have chosen not to supply the passcode.
The detectives used the passcode to unlock the phone, and they put it in "airplane mode" to protect the data from being deleted remotely. The detectives did not otherwise search the phone to review any data it contained. The phonewas then turned off and placed into evidence, and nothing further was done with it until a search warrant for the phone was obtained three weeks later.
The search of the phone consisted of an extraction of its data that, in pertinent part, confirmed the May 31, 2018 exchange of the text messages between Ida and Greg that were on Ida's phone. In addition, the phone contained a video recording of a male vaginally penetrating the vagina of a female with his penis from behind. The faces of the male and female are not shown on the recording, but Ida testified she is the female in the video and Greg is the male, and the video shows Greg sexually assaulting her. During his trial testimony, Greg admitted he is the male in the recording, Ida is the female, and he made the recording on his phone.
Based on the discovery of the recording, the State added two additional charges against Greg prior to trial. The State charged Greg with the following additional offenses that would be crimes if committed by an adult: first-degree endangering the welfare of a child through the possession of child pornography, N.J.S.A 2C:24-4(b)(3), and third-degree invasion of privacy, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b)(1).
At trial, Ida detailed the events she claimed led to the sexual assault. She spent the morning of May 31, 2018, with her friend, Z.J. (Zack). He received acall from Greg, who invited Zack and Ida to his house. Greg and Ida knew each other. They had gone to school together for a few months three years earlier, and, during that time, they exchanged text messages and partially naked photographs of each other. Ida denied she and Greg had any type of physical relationship during that time.7 She also testified she had no contact with Greg after leaving the school in May 2015 and prior to her visit to Greg's house with Zack on May 31, 2018.
After Zack and Ida entered Greg's house, they went to Greg's bedroom where Zack and Greg played video games while Ida sat on the edge of the bed on her cell phone. While she was on her cell phone, Ida received text messages from Greg requesting she engage in various sex acts with him.8 Ida uniformly rebuffed Greg's suggestions, directly responded "No" or "Nope" to a number of his requests, and otherwise clearly stated she had no interest in his proposals.
At some point, Zack said he was going to get something to eat and left the room. According to Ida, after Zack departed, Greg grabbed her around the waist,forced his hand down her pants, inserted his fingers in her vagina, and put his penis in front of her face. Ida testified Greg pulled her hair and forced her down onto the bed. She physically resisted and repeatedly told him to stop. Ida explained Greg overpowered her, turned her onto stomach, and inserted his penis into her vagina from behind.
Ida testified Greg stopped vaginally penetrating her only when Zack re-entered the room. She then immediately left the room and Greg's house and returned to Zack's car, which was parked outside. Zack left the house and drove Ida home, where she told her sister she had been raped and was transported to the hospital, where she reported what occurred to the detectives.
Greg testified at trial and admitted he exchanged the texts recovered from his and Ida's phones. He also acknowledged Ida said "no" repeatedly and exclusively to his requests that she engage in sexual acts with him. However, he testified that Ida willingly participated in their physical interactions after Zack left the room, and that he had consensual sexual intercourse with Ida, which he recorded in part on his phone.
Following the presentation of the evidence and counsels'...
To continue reading
Request your trial