State v. R.T.
Decision Date | 28 April 2011 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.R.T., Defendant–Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREOn appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.Leslie–Ann M. Justus, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).Michael J. Confusione, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).PER CURIAM.
The members of the Court being equally divided on whether the instruction on voluntary intoxication required a new trial (three members finding the error harmful, one finding it harmless, and two finding no error), the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
For affirmance—Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ALBIN—3.For concurrence in part/dissent in part—Chief Justice RABNER—1.For dissent—Justices RIVERA–SOTO and HOENS—2.Not participating—Judge STERN (temporarily assigned)—1.Justice LONG, concurring.
At issue in this appeal is the propriety of the trial court's issuance, sua sponte, of a voluntary intoxication instruction, over the objection of defense counsel who claimed that the instruction was unwarranted on the evidence and negatively impacted his trial strategy. Defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against a child and the Appellate Division, over a dissent, ordered a new trial based on the issuance of the charge. State v. R.T., 411 N.J.Super. 35, 53, 983 A.2d 1177 (App.Div.2009). The State appeals as of right. R. 2:2–1(a). The evidence in this case did not warrant a voluntary intoxication charge. Its issuance interfered with defendant's strategy and affected the fairness of his trial. I would therefore affirm.
Defendant, Robert Trout,1 was indicted on two counts of sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14–2(a)(1); two counts of aggravated sexual assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14–2(a)(7); and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24–4(a); committed between the dates of July 15, 1997, and June 30, 2003. The alleged victim of the charged crimes was defendant's nephew, Larry Trout (Larry), who lived with him during that period.
A.
Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress a recorded statement he had given to the police. The testimony at the suppression hearing was as follows: on June 2, 2004, defendant presented himself voluntarily at the Camden County Prosecutor's Office for an appointment at the Child Abuse Unit. The purpose of the appointment was to discuss allegations that had been made by Larry against defendant. Sergeant Aida Marcial and Investigator John Hunsinger conducted the interview.
Defendant was advised of Larry's allegations against him and received Miranda warnings. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and signed a waiver card. He denied Larry's claims and Investigator Hunsinger asked him if he would submit to a computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA). Defendant agreed and underwent the test. Subsequently, Investigator Hunsinger advised defendant that the CVSA indicated deceptive answers to two questions regarding penetration of Larry.2
According to Investigator Hunsinger, defendant renewed his denial of the allegations. Defendant then expressed his belief that if he had abused Larry it would have occurred while he was drinking. At the end of the interview, Investigator Hunsinger asked defendant if he would consent to an audiotaped statement. Defendant agreed and Investigator Hunsinger again issued Miranda warnings. Again, defendant waived his rights. Then, the following exchange occurred:
....
....
....
....
Following that statement, defendant was arrested and taken into custody.
Defendant contended at the suppression hearing that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights because he was not aware that he was a target of the investigation and the officers confronting him were not impartial and objective, but adversaries seeking to ensnare him. In denying the motion, the court relied on the fact that defendant came to the police station freely; was not threatened or coerced; never indicated that he wanted to consult an attorney or terminate the interview; and the questioning was not unduly lengthy. The court concluded that the Miranda waiver was made knowingly, freely, intelligently, and voluntarily; as a result, defendant's statement was deemed admissible.
Also prior to trial, the State moved to permit the use of a videotape of Larry's interview, conducted by Investigator Asha Ritchards on May 30, 2004. The substance of the interview was replicated by Larry's later trial testimony ( see infra pp. 498–500, 16 A.3d at 369–70) in which he recounted years of sexual abuse by defendant. In terms of the issue presented here, Larry's statement discussed defendant's alcohol use briefly:
....
The court granted the State's motion to use Larry's statement, pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Evidence 803(c)(27). The propriety of that ruling is not before us, and, thus, the procedures surrounding the taking of Larry's statement will not be set forth.
The case proceeded to trial. Laura Fox, Larry's mother, testified that a judge granted defendant temporary custody of Larry because she “had a problem with housing.” Laura also testified that Larry revealed the sexual abuse to her on May 30, 2004,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. W.S.B.
...physical tasks or which substantially interferes with his or her cognition or communication. See, e.g., State v. R.T., 205 N.J. 493, 505, 16 A.3d 365 (2011) (Long, J., concurring) ("Intoxication under our law means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introducti......
-
State v. Pendleton
...as well as to create a jury question on defendant's intoxication." State v. R.T., 411 N.J. Super. 35, 50-51 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd, 205 N.J. 493 (2011). Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant's reliance upon a doctor who stated, "defendant had been increasingly dependent on......
-
State v. Carter
...(2002) (quoting State v. Choice, 98 N.J. 295, 298 (1985)). "[T]he need for the charge must 'jump off the proverbial page." State v. R.T., 205 N.J. 493, 510 (2011) quotation marks omitted). As such, a "trial court does not 'have the obligation on its own [to] meticulously . . . sift through ......
-
State v. Bell
...charge." State v. Denofa, 187 N.J. 24, 42 (2006). "[T]he need for the charge must 'jump off' the proverbial page." State v. R.T., 205 N.J. 493, 510 (2011). "Passion/provocation manslaughter is an intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances that mitigate the murder." State......