Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 572-0500 www.njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen was included in the “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters

Tuesday, March 02, 2021

Conviction reservers where reasonable person not free to leave before confession State v. O.D.A.-C.

 Conviction reservers where reasonable person not free to leave before confession State v. O.D.A.-C.

Defendant appealed from his conviction for second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress a statement he gave to detectives after he was transported to the police station directly from the hospital after being discharged. In denying defendant's motion, the trial court credited the state's argument that defendant was not in custody when he was questioned by detectives, as the detectives testified that defendant was never handcuffed and should have believed that he was free to go whenever he wanted. On appeal, the court reversed defendant's conviction and the denial of defendant's suppression motion. The court first rejected defendant's contention that he was illegally arrested, noting that defendant was not formally arrested until after he gave his statement to the police. In any event, the court further found that the victim's statement to police describing the numerous incidents in which defendant assaulted her gave rise to probable cause to arrest defendant. However, the court held that, in denying defendant's suppression motion, the trial court erred in considering the detectives' belief that defendant felt he was free to leave or should have felt free to leave whenever he wanted. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court held that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to leave because he was not told by the detectives that he could go if he wanted and there was no other practical way for him to leave the prosecutor's office. The court also noted the detectives' repeated reference to defendant's Miranda warnings as a "formality" and assertion of the "confidentiality" of defendant's conversation, which undercut the seriousness of the warnings. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Gilson argued that the detectives' comments did not undermine the clear and correct Miranda warnings given to defendant.source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1612810424NJA293218/