State v. Dolison
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1673-19 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NAHEEM K. DOLISON, a/k/a KAQUON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 21, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Hudson County, Indictment No. 19-02-0189.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Denny, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Andrew F. Guarini, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Before Judges Accurso and Firko.
Defendant Naheem K. Dolison was arrested in a stolen car fifteen or twenty minutes after the key fob was wrested from the owner by two masked men with guns. After police told defendant he was being charged with receipt of stolen property, he gave a statement implicating himself in the robbery. Following the grant of the State's motion to admit that statement defendant entered a negotiated, conditional guilty plea to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. He appeals pursuant to Rule 3:9-3(f), contending the court erred in granting the State's motion. He raises two issues for our consideration:
We reject his arguments and affirm. In accordance with current controlling caselaw, police were under no obligation to advise defendant, who had yet to be charged with any crime, "of his true status as a suspect in the robbery" even if they had "probable cause that he committed it." See State v. Sims, 250 N.J. 189 (2022). Their failure to do so did not undermine defendant's waiver of the right to remain silent or the voluntariness of defendant's statement made after administration of Miranda[1] warnings.
Only one witness testified at the hearing on the State's motion, Detective Miguel Rivera. Rivera, a twelve-year veteran of the Jersey City Police Department and an investigator with the major case unit, explained he'd been called in to interview the victim and defendant following the latter's arrest in the victim's stolen car. Defendant had reportedly asked to speak to an officer.
When the detective and a colleague administered Miranda warnings to defendant, as evidenced by the DVD of the interrogation admitted at the hearing, they told him he'd "been charged with receiving stolen property." The detective admitted, however, he'd only intended to charge defendant with receipt of stolen property and had not actually sworn out a complaint-warrant before beginning the interrogation. He also acknowledged the detectives were investigating an armed robbery and defendant's involvement in it.
Shortly after the interrogation began, defendant admitted he'd "moved" the car at the request of someone named "Jamaal," whom defendant encountered on the street near his home, acknowledging he'd suspected the car was stolen. Instead of concluding their interrogation with that admission, the detectives told defendant they didn't believe him and pressed him to explain how he'd really acquired the key fob. The detectives insisted defendant had been lying to them, told him this was his "chance to talk," that "everybody makes mistakes," "[n]obody got hurt," and although they were "not saying [defendant] had anything to do with it," they were sure he knew "how that played out."
When they got no further with defendant, the detectives told him to stop wasting their time, Finally, the detectives took a short break telling defendant he had one more chance to "[g]ather [his] thoughts as to how exactly this whole thing unfolded." Rivera testified that during the break, he'd looked in on the officers conducting the property inventory, and learned defendant had been arrested wearing a skull cap. The victim claimed the robbers had both worn ski masks.
When the detectives returned to their interrogation room, they confronted defendant with the cap, which he admitted was his, and that he'd been wearing it rolled up on his head when he was arrested. Although knowing the victim claimed both robbers had brandished guns, the detectives lied to defendant, telling him only one of the robbers was armed, and asking which of them would be "getting charged with the gun, you or Mr. Unknown?"
Defendant claimed he did not have a gun but confessed to participating in the robbery with "Michael," someone he'd gone to school with. Following the interrogation, Rivera telephoned a judge and swore out a complaintwarrant charging defendant with first-degree armed robbery; second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon; second-degree certain persons offense; second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose; and third-degree receipt of stolen property.
After hearing the testimony, viewing the DVD of the interrogation and reading the parties' supplemental briefs, the judge found defendant had been properly advised of his Miranda rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights before making his statement to police. The judge rejected defendant's reliance on A.G.D.[2] ( police must advise a suspect of a pending criminal complaint or arrest warrant before questioning if the suspect is not otherwise aware of it) and Vincenty[3] ( the failure of police to inform a suspect of a pending criminal charge or arrest warrant deprives him of the ability to knowingly waive his right against self-incrimination), because in each of those cases, the defendant was facing an actual charge of which he was not advised before waiving his Miranda rights, not a contemplated charge as here. The judge found defendant "
Defendant appeals, arguing the detectives' decision to tell him he was charged with receiving stolen property was done "deliberately to lessen the seriousness of the offense with the hope he would be more likely to waive his rights and then incriminate himself on the robbery." He claims it ran afoul of our decision in State v. Sims, in which we held a defendant, "[o]nce arrested, . . . was entitled to be informed of the charge for which he was being placed under arrest before deciding whether to waive his right against selfincrimination." State v. Sims, 466 N.J.Super. 346, 367 (App. Div. 2021), rev'd 250 N.J. 189 (2022). Defendant also argues the detectives telling defendant he was only being charged with receiving stolen property "was a deceptive tactic," of the sort we recently condemned in State v. Diaz, 470 N.J.Super. 495, 503 (App. Div. 2022), "employed to circumvent the protective effects of the Miranda warnings."
Our scope of review of a decision admitting a defendant's statement is limited. State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592, 609 (2021). We "must uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." Ibid. (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007)). Legal conclusions drawn from those facts, of course, are reviewed de novo. State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469, 493 (2022).
Since the initial briefing in this case, the Supreme Court has reversed our decision in Sims. 250 N.J. at 197. The Court in Sims instructed before beginning their questioning. Id. at 213. "The officers need not speculate about additional charges that may later be brought or the potential amendment of pending charges." Id. at 214. The Court directed that trial judges are to consider a defendant's claim that police delayed lodging charges in order to avoid having to advise him of the charges he faced "as part of the totality-of-the-circumstances test." Id. at 216.
Applying the Court's ruling in Sims here makes clear the trial judge correctly deemed defendant's statement admissible at trial as the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's statement was freely volunteered and the detectives did not overbear defendant's will in the course of their interrogation. State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368, 383 (2014). While the detectives did not advise defendant he was a suspect in the armed robbery, the judge was correct in ruling there was no obligation on them to do so as defendant had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial