Case Title: New Jersey v. Vincenty

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2019-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the
Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.

                      State v. Adrian A. Vincenty (A-40-17) (079978)

Argued October 23, 2018 -- Decided March 11, 2019

FERNANDEZ-VINA, J., writing for the Court.

        In State v. A.G.D., the Court held that “[t]he government’s failure to inform a suspect
that a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed or issued deprives that person of
information indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights.”  178 N.J. 56, 68
(2003). Defendant Adrian Vincenty argues that two detectives failed to inform him of the
criminal charges filed against him when they interrogated him and asked him to waive his
right against self-incrimination. Relying on A.G.D., Vincenty filed a motion to suppress
statements he made to the detectives. The Court considers that motion.

        Detectives Thomas Glackin and Brian Mera questioned Vincenty about the attempted
robbery and attempted murder of Jerry Castellano. Castellano was attacked by two men on
March 20, 2011. One of the assailants wore a mask and dropped or threw it away after the
attack. Castellano ultimately survived the attack. Police officers recovered the mask on the
night in question. The mask was tested for DNA -- and Vincenty’s DNA was found on it.
The detectives also identified Vincenty from the video recording of the attack.

        Detective Mera read Vincenty his rights -- and Vincenty was given and read a form
detailing his rights. At the bottom of the form, it read: “I acknowledge that I have been
advised of the constitutional rights as stated above.” Vincenty signed the form.

        Detective Mera explained that the police identified Vincenty from the video recording
of the attack and sought his assistance to identify the second assailant on the video recording.
Detective Mera told Vincenty that “the judge already charged [him],” explained that they
obtained Vincenty’s DNA from the mask, and informed him that they “have the charges.”

       Vincenty indicated that he was confused and denied any involvement in the attack.
Detective Mera said, “We have you with the DNA and we have you . . . with gun charges,
right?” Vincenty responded, “Ah huh.” Vincenty nonetheless continued to deny any
involvement in the robbery. Detective Mera then told Vincenty that they “presented the
evidence to the judge,” who “put the charges in.” Vincenty still indicated that he was
“surprise[d] that [the detectives] ha[d] . . . evidence against [him].”

       The detectives showed Vincenty a picture of the assailants. Vincenty told the
detectives one of the assailants “looks like [him]” and that he has a coat similar to one worn
                                               1
by one of the assailants. Detective Mera explained that they had shown a judge all of the
evidence because in order for them to speak with Vincenty, “[they] needed the charges.”
The detectives attempted to elicit information about the other assailant. Vincenty said, “I
don’t know him very well like that,” and “I met him thru [sic] another friend of mine.”

       A few moments later, Detective Mera mentioned that they had charges against
Vincenty. Vincenty then stated that he did not get a letter from a judge about the charges and
asked the detectives what the charges were. The officers showed Vincenty a list of the
charges and explained to Vincenty that he had been charged with attempted homicide,
robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Shortly thereafter, Vincenty told the detectives
he wanted to talk to a lawyer and expressed concern that there were charges pending against
him. The detectives continued questioning Vincenty, who again asked to speak with a
lawyer and indicated that he was both surprised and confused. The detectives then
acknowledged Vincenty’s desire to speak with a lawyer and stopped questioning him.

        A grand jury indicted Vincenty, who then filed a motion to suppress the statements he
made to Detectives Glackin and Mera. The State indicated that it would not seek to admit
any statements Vincenty made after he first requested to speak with a lawyer, and the trial
court found that, until Vincenty requested to speak with a lawyer, his statements were the
result of a “knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.”

        Vincenty entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he pleaded guilty to
first-degree attempted murder and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression
motion. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court’s denial of Vincenty’s motion
to suppress. The Court granted Vincenty’s petition for certification.  232 N.J. 278 (2018).

HELD: The record reveals that the detectives failed to inform Vincenty of the charges filed
against him when they read him his rights and asked him to waive his right against self-
incrimination. That failure deprived Vincenty of the ability to knowingly and intelligently
waive his right against self-incrimination. Pursuant to A.G.D., Vincenty’s motion to
suppress should have been granted.

1. The right against self-incrimination is one of the most important protections of the
criminal law. Individuals, as holders of the right, may waive the right against self-
incrimination. Law enforcement officers must first advise a suspect of the right against self-
incrimination before attempting to obtain a waiver of the right. The State carries the burden
of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary in light of all the circumstances. (pp. 11-12)

2. In A.G.D., detectives questioned the defendant at his home about allegations of sexual
abuse.  178 N.J. at 59. The detectives did not tell the defendant that a warrant for his arrest
had been issued. Ibid. The defendant confessed to the alleged sexual abuse and was
subsequently convicted of related offenses. Id. at 60-61. Before trial, the defendant moved
to suppress his confession. Id. at 61. The Court held that the defendant’s confession should
have been suppressed, id. at 69, because the “government’s failure to inform a suspect that a
                                              2
criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed or issued deprives that person of
information indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights,” id. at 68. If
suspects are not informed that a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed against
them, they necessarily lack “critically important information” and thus “the State cannot
sustain its burden” of proving a suspect has knowingly and intelligently waived the right
against self-incrimination. Ibid. (pp. 13-14)

3. A.G.D. thus calls for law enforcement officials to make a simple declaratory statement at
the outset of an interrogation that informs a defendant of the essence of the charges filed
against him. That information should not be woven into accusatory questions posed during
the interview. The State may choose to notify defendants immediately before or after
administering Miranda warnings, so long as defendants are aware of the charges pending
against them before they are asked to waive the right to self-incrimination. (p. 14)

4. Vincenty’s interrogation is precisely what A.G.D. prohibits, and it substantiates A.G.D.’s
holding. Unaware that charges had been filed against him, Vincenty appeared willing and
ready to waive his right against self-incrimination. However, when Vincenty was informed
of the criminal charges filed against him, everything changed. His willingness to speak with
the detectives dissipated. As that chain of events demonstrates, Vincenty’s ability to
knowingly and intelligently decide whether to waive his right against self-incrimination was
fundamentally altered when he was informed of the criminal charges filed against him.
Withholding that critically important information deprived Vincenty of the ability to
knowingly and voluntarily waive the right against self-incrimination. (pp. 14-16)

5. The trial court and Appellate Division erred in holding Vincenty knowingly and
intelligently waived his right against self-incrimination. Consideration of harmless error
would not change matters here because some of Vincenty’s statements could be fairly
characterized as inculpatory, and Vincenty’s conduct reveals that his decision to plead guilty
was influenced by the trial court’s suppression ruling. (pp. 16-17)

    The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON,
SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA’S opinion.

                                              3
       SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
             A-
40 September Term 2017
                       079978

                 State of New Jersey,

                Plaintiff-Respondent,

                          v.

             Adrian A. Vincenty, a/k/a
              Adrian A. Vicente and
               Adrian A. Vicenty,

                Defendant-Appellant.

        On certification to the Superior Court,
                  Appellate Division.

       Argued                      Decided
   October 23, 2018             March 11, 2019

Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; Stephen W. Kirsch, of counsel and on
the briefs).

Frank Muroski, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Frank Muroski, of counsel and on the
brief, and Erica Bertuzzi, Assistant Hudson County
Prosecutor, on the brief).

                           1
      JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the opinion of the Court.

      In State v. A.G.D., this Court held that “[t]he government’s failure to

inform a suspect that a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed or

issued deprives that person of information indispensable to a knowing and

intelligent waiver of rights.”  178 N.J. 56, 68 (2003). Defendant Adrian

Vincenty argues that two detectives failed to inform him of the criminal

charges filed against him when they interrogated him and asked him to waive

his right against self-incrimination. Relying on A.G.D., Vincenty filed a

motion to suppress statements he made to the detectives.

      The trial court denied his motion in part and granted it in part. The trial

court held that the detectives did not violate A.G.D., but the court suppressed

the statements Vincenty made to the detectives after he invoked his right to

counsel. Vincenty pleaded guilty to first-degree attempted murder and was

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with an eighty-five percent parole

disqualifier. Vincenty appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

      The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial of Vincenty’s

motion to suppress. According to the Appellate Division, the record showed

that Vincenty was informed of the charges pending against him before he

                                        2
waived his right against self-incrimination. Thus, the Appellate Division held,

the detectives did not contravene A.G.D.

      We disagree. The record reveals that the detectives failed to inform

Vincenty of the charges filed against him when they read him his rights and

asked him to waive his right against self-incrimination. That failure deprived

Vincenty of the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his right against

self-incrimination. Pursuant to A.G.D., Vincenty’s motion to suppress should

have been granted. We thus reverse the Appellate Division’s judgment and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                       I.

                                       A.

      Adrian Vincenty was incarcerated at the Garden State Correctional

Facility when Detectives Thomas Glackin and Brian Mera visited him to

question him about the attempted robbery and attempted murder of Jerry

Castellano. Castellano was attacked on March 20, 2011 in Weehawken.

Video surveillance of the attack showed two men approach Castellano. The

assailants attempted to rob Castellano but were unable to execute the robbery.

One of the assailants shot Castellano in the back of the head. One of the

assailants wore a mask and dropped or threw it away after the attack.

Castellano ultimately survived the attack.

                                       3
       Police officers recovered the mask on the night in question. The mask

was tested for DNA -- and Vincenty’s DNA was found on it. The detectives

also identified Vincenty from the video recording of the attack. The detectives

sought to question Vincenty to identify the second assailant on the video

recording.

       Detective Glackin asked Detective Mera to accompany him to question

Vincenty because Vincenty speaks only Spanish and Mera is fluent in Spanish.

The detectives recorded the interview. Detective Mera spoke with Vincenty in

Spanish.

       Detective Mera read Vincenty his Miranda1 rights -- and Vincenty was

given and read a form detailing his rights. The form was written in both

English and Spanish. At the bottom of the form, it read: “I acknowledge that I

have been advised of the constitutional rights as stated above.” Underneath

this acknowledgment, Vincenty signed the form.

       Detective Mera explained that the police identified Vincenty from the

video recording of the attack and sought his assistance to identify the second

assailant on the video recording. Detective Mera told Vincenty that “the judge

already charged [him].” Detective Mera explained that they obtained

Vincenty’s DNA from the mask recovered at the scene of the attack. Detective

1
    Miranda v. Arizona,