State v. Diaz
| Decision Date | 07 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3764-20 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew DIAZ, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William Kyle Meighan, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney; Samuel Marzarella, Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan, on the briefs).
Rochelle Watson, Deputy Public Defender II, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Rochelle Watson, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Hoffman, Whipple and Susswein.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUSSWEIN, J.A.D.
This appeal arises from an investigation and ongoing prosecution for strict liability for drug-induced death, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-9, following a fatal heroin overdose. By leave granted, the State appeals from the July 20, 2021 Law Division order granting defendant's motion for reconsideration of the October 29, 2020 order that had denied defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to detectives during two custodial interrogations, one that occurred when he was first arrested as he was leaving his residence and another interrogation that occurred shortly thereafter at the police station.1 The trial court reversed its initial decision and suppressed incriminating statements defendant made during the stationhouse interrogation because the interrogating officers did not advise him that he was facing prosecution for first-degree strict liability for drug-induced death. The State brings this appeal before trial and following the motion for reconsideration, which reversed the motion denied at the suppression hearing.
The State contends the detectives were not required at the outset of the custodial interrogation to inform defendant about the overdose death, that the detectives at the time of the interrogation did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for the first-degree strict-liability homicide offense, and that the trial court erred in finding on reconsideration that defendant did not knowingly waive his Miranda 2 rights. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable principles of law, we affirm the trial court's order suppressing defendant's incriminating statements made during the stationhouse interrogation. We do so for somewhat different reasons than those the trial court relied upon in its July 20, 2021 written decision and August 26, 2021 amplification letter submitted pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b).
The record before us shows that the detectives deliberately and designedly misled defendant as to his true legal status by providing a vague and incomplete answer to defendant's inquiry as to the reason for his arrest. That was done pursuant to a planned investigative strategy to elicit incriminating statements linking defendant to the overdose death before defendant became aware that someone had died. By withholding this information when initially explaining why he had been taken into custody, the detectives in practical effect understated defendant's sentencing exposure. We also conclude that, viewed from an objective perspective, the detectives in this case were aware of facts constituting probable cause to believe defendant committed the strict liability for drug-induced death offense notwithstanding they did not yet have the results of the autopsy or toxicology tests. We affirm based on our conclusion that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly waived his right against self-incrimination.
We begin by summarizing the pertinent facts that were adduced at the suppression hearing. In doing so, we recognize that defendant has not yet been tried and is presumed innocent. On May 8, 2019, the Toms River Police Department responded to a "possible drug overdose" at an apartment. Upon arrival, Detective Duncan MaCrae from the Toms River Police Department found Sheila Baita deceased. Tabatha Ludeman, Baita's roommate, was present in the apartment when Detective MaCrae arrived. Ludeman told the detective that she had purchased heroin from defendant the night before.
Ludeman explained that she communicated with defendant via Facebook Messenger and used that platform to arrange the drug deal. Ludeman stated that on the night of May 7, 2019, defendant went to Ludeman's apartment, accompanied by an unidentified Hispanic male. Defendant and the unidentified male sold $80.00 worth of heroin to Ludeman. The heroin was divided into eight "wax folds."3 Ludeman gave four of her wax folds to Baita.
Ludeman stated that she intravenously injected herself with two wax folds. She lost consciousness for approximately three hours. When she awoke, she found Baita's body on the floor. Ludeman reported that she "believe[d] ... [Baita used] her heroin nasally, but was unsure how many folds" Baita ingested. Ludeman turned over to police two wax folds that were stamped "American Made" in red ink and reported that she found the wax folds among Baita's belongings.
Ludeman agreed to cooperate with the police investigation of Baita's death. She authorized police to download her Facebook Messenger conversation with defendant. She also provided a recorded statement and identified a photograph of defendant. Ludeman informed police that she believed that defendant resided on Lien Street in Toms River. Police placed that residence under surveillance.
Ludeman also agreed to a "consensual intercept between [her] and defendant."4 Detective MaCrae and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office Detective Brant Uricks instructed Ludeman to call defendant and ask for "the same stuff as last night." Ludeman complied and advised defendant that another individual was at her apartment with money to purchase heroin, but that person "would not be there long." Defendant responded that he would be at her apartment in approximately six minutes.
After the phone conversation ended, Toms River Police Department Detective Travis Seaman, who was stationed outside defendant's apartment, "observed defendant come out the common doorway at his residence." Detective Seaman "approached the defendant, identified himself and advised defendant of his Miranda rights from memory."5 Detective Seaman testified at the suppression hearing that after he and the police officers identified themselves, defendant was not free to leave because "he was being held under investigative detention ...."6 When asked why he had administered Miranda warnings immediately, Detective Seaman explained that it was because defendant "was going to be questioned."
Defendant indicated to Detective Seaman that he understood his rights and asked the detective "what [this] was about." Detective Seaman responded to defendant's inquiry, stating "we [are] conducting an investigation involving narcotics" and asked if defendant "had anything on his person." Defendant told Detective Seaman that he had narcotics in his pocket. Defendant then removed a "bundle of heroin" from his pocket.7
Detective Seaman notified Detective MaCrae that defendant was in custody. Detective MaCrae arrived at the scene of the arrest soon after. Defendant admitted that he had additional narcotics in his apartment and consented to a search of the residence.
When police entered the apartment, they came upon co-defendant, Amanda Robinson.8 She initially explained that she was only visiting the residence but then admitted to being in possession of seventeen "wax folds stamped American Made and two round, peach pills later identified as Eupinorfrin and Naxolone." Defendant directed the officers to his bedroom where they found "several empty wax folds and six full wax folds stamped American Made."
Defendant and Robinson were then transported to the police station where each provided an electronically recorded statement.
Prior to giving his statement, defendant was "read the standard Toms River Police Department Miranda form and Detective MaCrae explained the waiver portion to defendant." Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and waived them by signing and dating the accompanying form.
The record indicates that Detective MaCrae read verbatim the preprinted Miranda warnings and waiver provision. Neither MaCrae nor Uricks indicated during the waiver colloquy what the interrogation was about. Nor did they specify the potential criminal charges that defendant was facing. Defendant did not repeat the question he had earlier posed to Detective Seaman concerning the reason for his arrest, but nor did Detectives MaCrae or Uricks retract, amplify, or otherwise modify the answer that Seaman had given while outside defendant's apartment. It is not disputed that no arrest or complaint-warrant had been applied for or issued until after the stationhouse interrogation was concluded.
The trial judge summarized her findings concerning the stationhouse interrogation, stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cotto
...light of all the circumstances.’ " A.M., 237 N.J. at 397, 205 A.3d 213 (quoting Presha, 163 N.J. at 313, 748 A.2d 1108 ).[ 470 N.J.Super. 495, 515, 270 A.3d 392 (2022) (alteration in original).] As our decision in Diaz makes clear, the totality-of-the-circumstances analytical paradigm is by......
-
State v. Hahn
... Id. at 217, 271 A.3d 288 .C.Since the briefs were filed in this case, our court has issued two decisions, State v. Diaz, 470 N.J. Super. 495, 270 A.3d 392 (App. Div. 2022), filed before the Court issued its reversal in Sims, and State v. Cotto, 471 N.J. Super. 489, 274 A.3d 618 (App. Div.......
-
State v. Francisco
..."are not bound by a trial court's interpretation of the legal consequences that flow from established facts." State v. Diaz, 470 N.J. Super. 495, 513, 270 A.3d 392 (App. Div. 2022) ; accord State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39, 45, 18 A.3d 179 (2011) (noting that whether established facts warrant su......
-
State v. Weathers
...active, forceful, engagement with the police informs, in part, our totality of the circumstances analysis. Defendant's reliance on Diaz, 470 N.J.Super. at 495, is misplaced as it is clearly distinguishable from the matter before us. In that case, the defendant was suspected of first-degree ......
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...coercion. Misrepresenting the potential criminal charge a defendant is facing can also render a confession involuntary. In State v Diaz , 270 A.3d 392 (N.J. Ct. App 2022), police told defendant they were doing a narcotics investigation when they were really investigating a drug overdose hom......