State v. O.D.A.-C.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-78 September Term 2020,085608 |
| Citation | 250 N.J. 408,273 A.3d 413 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O.D.A.-C., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Edward F. Ray, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; Edward F. Ray, of counsel and on the briefs, and John J. Scaliti, Legal Assistant, on the briefs).
John Vincent Saykanic argued the cause for respondent (John Vincent Saykanic, Clifton, on the brief).
Catlin A. Davis, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Catlin A. Davis, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph J. Russo, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Public Defender of New Jersey (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Joseph J. Russo, and Alison Perrone, First Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Alan Silber, Hackensack, argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein, attorneys; CJ Griffin and Joshua P. Law, on the brief).
Lauren Gottesman, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for amicus curiae Innocence Project (Innocence Project and Dechert, attorneys; Paul Kingsbery, J. Ian Downes, Lauren Gottesman, David Weinraub, of the New York and Maine bars, admitted pro hac vice, Arif Hyder Ali, of the New York and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, and Rose Marie Wong, of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).
Law enforcement officers must convey certain important warnings to individuals before they can be interrogated while in custody. Among other familiar principles, suspects must be told they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can and will be used against them. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
In this appeal, a detective administered Miranda warnings but repeatedly undermined them throughout an interrogation. To encourage defendant to confess, the detective, for example, said the warnings were "[j]ust a formality" and that anything discussed would remain "confidential between us." Just the opposite is true, however.
A defendant's statement to the police, made in custody, is admissible if it is given freely and voluntarily, after the defendant received Miranda warnings, and after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's waiver was valid. State v. Sims, 250 N.J. 189, 211, 271 A.3d 288 (2022). Courts look to the totality of the circumstances to assess whether the State has met its burden. Ibid.
Because a detective here repeatedly contradicted and minimized the significance of the Miranda warnings -- starting at the outset of the interrogation and continuing throughout -- the State cannot shoulder its heavy burden. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division majority, which concluded defendant's statement had to be suppressed.
We draw the following facts from two sources: an investigative report prepared by a detective assigned to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office (BCPO); and questions posed by the same detective, as well as a detective assigned to the Hackensack Police Department, when they interviewed defendant.
Beginning in late September 2013, the detectives investigated an allegation that H.B.,1 then fourteen years old, had been sexually assaulted. H.B.’s mother learned of the assault when she read a text message on H.B.’s cell phone; H.B. reportedly told a friend that she had been "raped." When confronted about the text, H.B. disclosed that her grandmother's boyfriend -- defendant O.D.A.-C. -- had touched her inappropriately.
In an interview with the detectives soon after, H.B. told them that defendant had touched her in a sexual manner on ten to fifteen occasions from when she was about eleven to thirteen years old. H.B. relayed that defendant touched her breasts and vagina with his hands and mouth.
Defendant voluntarily admitted himself to the hospital in September 2013 for psychological treatment. When he was discharged about ten days later, on October 2, 2013, law enforcement officers drove him from the hospital to the police station to be interviewed.2
The detectives from the BCPO and the Hackensack Police Department interviewed defendant for approximately thirty-five minutes. We quote at length from the transcript of the videotaped interview because it is central to this appeal.
The following exchange took place at the outset:
After that comment, the Hackensack detective read the Miranda warnings aloud from a form; defendant initialed each right; both the detective and defendant read aloud a paragraph titled "waiver of rights"; and defendant signed under the waiver paragraph.
The detectives then told defendant about H.B.’s allegations and made it clear that they believed her. For about fifteen minutes, they recounted H.B.’s statement and explained they had reached a point in their investigation when it was time to confront defendant and "see what [he] had to say." The detectives next attempted to get defendant to confirm the allegations and asked, among other things, how many times he had touched H.B.
Defendant was hesitant to respond. When asked if he had touched H.B. "8 to 15 times," he said, "[i]t's too many." When asked if it happened 15 or 20 times, he responded, "I don't think so." The detectives then encouraged defendant to respond more fully:
Immediately after that exchange, defendant admitted he had used steroids and agreed with the Hackensack detective that, when you inject yourself, "[y]ou do silly things."
The detectives then continued to question defendant about how many times he had inappropriately touched H.B., which led defendant to refer back to his Miranda rights:
After that exchange, the BCPO detective reiterated, "those are your rights and that's -- you are a hundred percent right, you have the right to not tell us anything you want."
The detectives then resumed asking about the number of incidents. When asked if the assaults occurred "maybe five times," defendant said, "[m]aybe a couple times, maybe not." The Hackensack detective then advised, "whatever you're saying here, it may be hard to believe that it's not going to work against you, your cooperation is paramount." (emphasis added).
Minutes later, defendant again expressed his reservations:
I mean, these are things that, you know, tell you the truth, I don't feel comfortable right now and I, you know, you ask me, I know you say you want to help me and all that, but, I, I mean, this is no, like, for me it's not my first case. So, I -- I went to -- you know, already was -- I was incarcerated for a mistake too that I did and they told me the same thing, they said, you know, talk, talk, talk, talk and then, you know, I help the guys or whatever it is ....
In response, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rivas
...waiver of constitutional rights or the voluntariness of a confession, which are legal, not factual, questions. State v. O.D.A.-C., 250 N.J. 408, 425, 273 A.3d 413 (2022) ("[T]he ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a confession is a legal question[.]" (citing Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 10......
- State v. Sheppard
-
State v. Menjivar
...When an individual is subject to custodial interrogation, that person is entitled to certain warnings in accordance with Miranda. O.D.A.-C., 250 N.J. at 420 (citing State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368, 382 After receiving Miranda warnings, a person may knowingly and intelligently waive those right......
- State v. Mcatasney