Case Title: New Jersey v. Carrion

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2021-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. 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. Jose Carrion (A-14-20) (084390)

Argued October 13, 2021 -- Decided December 27, 2021

LaVECCHIA, J., writing for a unanimous Court.

        This appeal, and the companion case of State v. Hedgespeth, ___ N.J. ___ (2021),
have in common an issue concerning the right to confrontation in the context of the
admission of an affidavit attesting that a search of a State firearm registry revealed no
lawful permit for an individual’s possession of a handgun. Defendant Jose Carrion also
raises a suppression issue. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a statement
that he made to law enforcement and for which he received Miranda warnings, but that he
made after an earlier, unwarned statement.

       In June 2012, Newark law enforcement secured a warrant for Carrion’s arrest,
based on allegations that Carrion shot a victim in the ankle. Five officers executed the
warrant. Carrion’s wife let them into the home, where they placed handcuffs on Carrion
who was sleeping on the couch; her fourteen-year-old son, Abel, witnessed the arrest.

        According to the State’s witnesses, while carrying out the arrest, the officers
observed a “black pouch” with narcotics protruding out of it sitting on a table. On
spotting the pouch, a detective examined it, saw drugs and a gun inside it, and alerted his
fellow officers to the presence of a weapon. The officer testified that Carrion admitted to
owning the bag without being asked any questions. Carrion’s wife and her son, however,
testified that the officers asked Carrion whether he had anything in the house and told
Carrion that if he did not admit ownership of the bag, DYFS would be contacted about
taking the children from the home. After his arrest, Carrion was transported to the station.

      About six hours later, a detective who was not involved in the arrest took a
statement from Carrion after informing him of Miranda rights. Carrion stated that he
understood those rights and read and signed a waiver form. During his interrogation,
Carrion alleged that someone else shot the victim but admitted that the gun was his.

       Carrion was indicted on weapons and drug offenses, as well as assault. He moved
to suppress both statements made to the police. He argued that his first statement made
while at his apartment -- admitting ownership of the black pouch containing the gun and
drugs -- should be suppressed because it constituted an interrogation and the officers
                                             1
failed to give him Miranda warnings prior to their questioning. As for his later recorded
statement at the police station, he argued that too should be suppressed as an unlawful
extension of the prior failure to provide Miranda warnings. The court granted Carrion’s
motion to suppress the first statement but denied his motion to suppress the second.

        At trial, the prosecution sought to admit an affidavit of Brett C. Bloom of the State
Firearms Investigative Unit, asserting that Bloom searched and found no record that
Carrion had a firearm permit. The State asked the court to submit the affidavit as a self-
authenticating document under N.J.R.E. 902(k) and under the absence-of-a-public-record
exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(10). Defense counsel objected, arguing
that there were hearsay and Confrontation Clause issues. The court found the document
both reliable and admissible under N.J.R.E. 902(k) and exceptions to the hearsay rule.

       Carrion was convicted and sentenced. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the
Court granted certification.  244 N.J. 280 (2020);  244 N.J. 503 (2020).

HELD: The State’s reliance on an affidavit by a non-testifying witness to introduce over
defendant’s objection the results of the database search violated defendant’s right to
confront the witnesses against him. And, under the totality of the circumstances,
Carrion’s second statement should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings
issued to Carrion prior to his second statement to police were insufficient in these
circumstances to ensure that his waiver of rights was voluntary and knowing. Because of
its holding on the suppression issue, the Court cannot conclude that the denial of
defendant’s right to confrontation constituted harmless error. For the purposes of future
matters, to ensure protection of defendants’ confrontation rights and the orderly
production of essential witnesses in judicial proceedings, the Court addresses a method to
avoid confrontation violations in these settings.

1. The Federal and State Constitutions provide that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. In
Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court announced a three-part test
for assessing a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The test asks (1) whether the
statement was testimonial, (2) whether the witness was unavailable to testify, (3) and
whether there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.