Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KENNY WATFORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1992-12-16
Citations: 261 N.J. Super. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KENNY WATFORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 151–169

Head Matter:
618 A.2d 358
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KENNY WATFORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued October 21, 1992
Decided December 16, 1992.
Before Judges HAVEY, STERN and BROCHIN.
M. Virginia Barta, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Zulima V. Farber, Public Defender of New Jersey, attorney; M. Virginia Barta, of counsel and on the brief).
Catherine A. Foddai, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Catherine A. Foddai, of counsel and on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
STERN, J.A.D.
After defendant's "motion to suppress" his confession was denied, he was tried without a jury and found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1); aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1); possession of a handgun with a purpose of using it unlawfully against the person of another, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; possession of a knife with a purpose of using it unlawfully against another, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d; and unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b. Defendant was sentenced to seven years in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), and to a consecutive seven year term with three years of parole ineligibility for the "Graves Act" possession for unlawful purpose offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. Concurrent sentences were imposed on the other convictions.
On this appeal defendant argues, among other things, that:
Point I — Defendant's convictions must be reversed because his confession, which resulted from the assistant prosecutor's impermissible plea bargaining with an uncounselled defendant and his promise of specific sentences for defendant and his brother, was involuntary.
We conclude that, as a matter of State law, any statement given in exchange for a prosecutor's promise of sentence during uncounselled plea negotiations on an indictable offense is inadmissible. Hence, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
The evidence at trial revealed that defendant and his brother assaulted Roland Lee, who had a romantic relationship with defendant's ex-girlfriend. Defendant stabbed the victim three times. In order to understand the principal issue before us, however, we must detail only the essential facts developed at the motion to suppress (more properly considered an Evid.R. 8(3) hearing, State v. Robinson, 224 N.J.Super. 495, 540 A.2d 1313 (App.Div.1988)).
After defendant's arrest, he gave a taped confession in which he admitted stabbing Lee. Defendant stated that when he went home after the first confrontation with Lee, he obtained the knife used in the stabbing, as well as a .38 caliber handgun. The gun was not observed by the victim and was never found by the police. Defendant also confessed to an unrelated series of car thefts and armed robberies.
Detective Anthony Crokus, the arresting officer, testified that at headquarters defendant was read and waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but was initially reluctant to give any information necessary to process the arrest. However, at some point defendant asked Crokus if he could make a deal to help his brother. Crokus relayed defendant's inquiry to Detective Everingham, who in turn called the First Assistant Cumberland County Prosecutor.
The prosecutor arrived at headquarters and commenced plea discussions with defendant concerning the stabbing and weapons possession charges, as well as the unrelated crimes. The prosecutor promised defendant a package deal of "20 years, must do 7 years without parole" if defendant "cooperated truthfully." He also promised defendant that his brother would receive the minimum mandatory of three years under the "Graves Act." After the Miranda rights were readministered, defendant confessed to the crimes after the prosecutor left.
In his testimony the prosecutor acknowledged that his purpose in going to headquarters was "to go down there and cut a deal with [defendant] at that point." The prosecutor testified:
The agreement was that if he cooperated truthfully, and I explained to him that truthfully meant that he wouldn't implicate anybody that wasn't involved in the crime, that he wouldn't take out or exculpate someone who was involved, and that he didn't, and that he would tell the actual roles of the players in the crimes, that as long as he wasn't involved in a murder, for every crime that he told us about truthfully, he would get 1 sentence; in other words, for the armed robbery, he would receive 20 years, must do 7 years without parole, and that for every other additional crime that he was involved in, that he would receive a concurrent sentence.
I also told him, I explained to him what the Graves Act was and I explained to him when you commit a crime with a gun or your accomplice is involved in using a gun, that you know about that, your sentence has to include at least a third without parole, (emphasis added).
The prosecutor also testified that defendant told him "if it wasn't for me, my brother wouldn't have been involved [in the stabbing]," and "I'm more concerned about the amount of time my brother has to do than what I have to do." In response, the prosecutor told defendant:
[Ejven if you got [your brother] involved in [the aggravated assault], as long as he knew there was a gun involved, he'd be subject to the Graves Act and would have to get at least 3 years without parole.
The prosecutor also testified:
I said that if his brother cooperated fully, the same conditions: that 1 would give his brother the minimum allowed by law, which was 3 years without parole, and I also told him that if the police or I suspected that he wasn't being fully candid, that he would agree to take a polygraph test, and I said that he would of course — this would be in return after cooperation for a guilty plea to the various crimes involved, (emphasis added).
According to defendant, the First Assistant Prosecutor was called to police headquarters when defendant would not cooperate, and advised him "not to get [his] own attorney"; said that "he would appoint [defendant] a public defender"; that "he had control over the judge and counsel"; and threatened that "he would see to it" that his brother, a teacher, "never taught in the State of New Jersey." Defendant further testified that the prosecutor never explained or answered his questions regarding what an attorney would do for him, but said that, between defendant and his brother, "he had to get 10 years out of us"; that "I would serve 7 years and my brother would serve 3"; and that "he would see to it that we were kept together the entire time that both of us were serving time." According to defendant, the prosecutor also made clear that, if defendant did not cooperate, "he would see to it that me and my brother each serve a minimum of 25 years each before we were eligible for parole" and that "the judge would agree because he was a prosecutor." After speaking with the prosecutor for "a minimum of an hour," he decided to give a statement to the detectives because "my future was in his hands . and my brother's, too."
In finding the statement admissible, the motion judge rejected defendant's argument that the confession was involuntary because it was induced by impermissible, uncounselled plea negotiations and promises of leniency by the prosecutor. Citing State v. Starling, 188 N.J.Super. 127, 456 A.2d 125 (Law Div.1983), aff'd o.b., 207 N.J.Super. 79, 504 A.2d 18 (App.Div.1985), certif. denied, 103 N.J. 481, 511 A.2d 658 (1986), the judge rejected the per se rule that a confession induced by a promise is involuntary, reasoning that a promise of leniency is only one factor to be considered in light of the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a statement was given voluntarily. Relying on Starling, supra, the judge concluded that here the confession was voluntary in the totality of circumstances.
Defendant argues that his confession was coerced by the First Assistant Prosecutor's promise that defendant and his brother would receive specific sentences if defendant cooperated and confessed. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor's "promise" rendered his confession involuntary in violation of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In support of his argument, defendant cites Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542-43, 18 S.Ct. 183, 186-87, 42 L.Ed. 568, 573 (1897), in which the United States Supreme Court endorsed the view that for a confession to be voluntary, it must not have been " 'extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight.' " But as Judge Havey develops in his concurring opinion, the per se rule in Bram does not state the present federal constitutional standard for determining the voluntariness of a confession. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1251, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 315 (1991). See also State v. Di Frisco, 118 N.J. 253, 257-58, 571 A.2d 914 (1990). We therefore reject defendant's per se argument advanced as a matter of federal constitutional law.
We need not decide if there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the trial judge's legal conclusion that the confession was not involuntary under federal constitutional principles, see and compare, e.g., Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985); State v. Godfrey, 131 N.J.Super. 168, 174-75, 329 A.2d 75 (App.Div.1974), aff'd o.b., 67 N.J. 267, 337 A.2d 371 (1975), because recognized State values require implementation of "bright line" principles in order to enhance fundamental fairness and predictability of criminal practice.
Here, incident to the discussion the prosecutor told defendant the sentence he "would receive" and the sentence the prosecutor "would give" his brother. However, our Rules of Court expressly detail prosecutorial authority with respect to plea bargaining, R. 3:9-3, and authorize neither such promises nor binding sentence recommendations. See e.g., State v. Warren, 115 N.J. 433, 558 A.2d 1312 (1989); State v. Spinks, 66 N.J. 568, 334 A.2d 23 (1975); R. 3:9-3(e). This case involves neither a discussion about what the prosecutor would recommend, by way of sentence or otherwise, to a judge incident to a plea, or how the prosecutor would exercise his own jurisdiction in the filing of charges, if defendant cooperated in the investigation. Rather, this case involves a statement made on the basis of a promise of a specific sentence which the prosecutor could not guarantee. In any event, while in this case the judge ultimately imposed the sentence which the prosecutor promised, we do not believe that the voluntariness of a statement when given should turn on whether the trial judge subsequently follows a prosecutor's sentence recommendation. Given the Judiciary's responsibility for sentencing and our State's firm policy concerning the impact of a sentence recommendation by the prosecutor, we adopt a "bright line" approach to the admissibility against a defendant of a statement made in exchange for a sentence recommendation by the prosecutor, and hold such statements inadmissible in the absence of counsel on an indictable charge.
In a recent decision our Supreme Court, after noting "that the Sixth Amendment is more demanding than the Fifth Amendment," held that our State Constitution, N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 10, gives more protection to a defendant, at least after indictment, than does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. See State v. Sanchez, 129 N.J. 261, 273, 609 A.2d 400 (1992). Sanchez held inadmissible a post-indictment confession made, even though with waiver of Miranda rights, in the absence of counsel. While the pre-indictment, post-indictment distinction may be significant in other contexts, it is insignificant in the context of such communications incident to plea negotiations which must be culminated, with counsel or after express waiver thereof, before the Superior Court. See e.g., Sanchez, supra, 129 N.J. at 277, 609 A.2d 400, (referring to the need for counsel with respect to plea negotiations); State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509, 608 A.2d 317 (1992) ("[i]t is for the court to determine whether an accused has knowingly and intelligently waived" his right to counsel in criminal prosecutions); see also State v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 247 N.J.Super. 314, 320-21, 589 A.2d 180 (App.Div.1991), app. dis. 130 N.J. 585, 617 A.2d 1213 (1992). The policies which require counsel at the taking of a post-indictment statement also require counsel whenever the prosecutor negotiates with a defendant to elicit a statement in exchange for a sentence recommendation on an indictable offense. An uncounselled statement made as part of negotiations relating to the proper sentence upon disposition of the criminal charges should not be admitted against the defendant if the case is not disposed of by plea. Cf. State v. Boyle, 198 N.J.Super. 64, 486 A.2d 852 (App.Div.1984); see also State v. Boone, 66 N.J. 38, 327 A.2d 661 (1974); Evid.R. 52(2); R. 3:9-2 (if plea is refused, no statement is admissible at trial). And note N.J.R.E. 410 effective July 1,1993. We thus hold that an uncounselled statement made incident to, or in exchange for, a sentence recommendation or sentence promise by the prosecutor to the defendant on an indictable offense, is inadmissible. Defendant's uncounselled admission in this case thus was inadmissible as a matter of State law.
This is not the occasion to examine the scope of the "harmless error" doctrine when a confession is admitted in violation of a State "bright line" rule. See, e.g., and compare, Arizona v. Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. at -, -, 111 S.Ct. at 1253-1254, 1257-1259, 113 L.Ed.2d at 317-322, 329-333; United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 273 A.2d 1 (1971). We so conclude because here the defendant's confession provided the direct proof on the handgun counts, and we cannot hold it had no impact on the judge's other findings. The State argues that because the proofs corroborated defendant's confession in other respects, there was sufficient evidence to uphold the handgun convictions. The State does not suggest, however, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain those convictions if defendant's confession is inadmissible. We therefore vacate the convictions for the handgun offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b and direct entry of a judgment of acquittal on those offenses. However, as we find defendant's waiver of jury trial unimpeachable, we leave for initial resolution by the trial judge whether he can make new findings and conclusions on the trial record made, without consideration of defendant's confession, or whether a plenary new trial is warranted on the other counts.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
We note that defendant ultimately received an aggregate of 20 years with 5 years parole ineligibility for all offenses.
There are special circumstances where the prosecutor can make a binding recommendation under a statute, but even then the prosecutor's recommendation can be subject to challenge before the judge. See e.g., State v. Vasquez, 129 N.J. 189, 609 A.2d 29 (1992); State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 601 A.2d 698 (1992); State v. Gonzalez, 254 N.J.Super. 300, 603 A.2d 516 (App.Div.1992); State v. Alvarez, 246 N.J.Super. 137, 586 A.2d 1332 (App.Div.1991). Because this case involves a "Graves" offense, see N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c, and other charges, we are not dealing with a prosecutor's pre-indictment promise or decision about the charges he would or would not file.
This case is quite different from State v. Starling, supra, where, in writing, the prosecutor in exchange for defendant's cooperation "agreed not to ask the court for Mr. Starling to be treated as a persistent offender [which requires the State's motion and proofs, see N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3a] even though his prior record justifies such a request." The written agreement further provided that "[t]he Prosecutor's Office further agrees not to ask the court for parole disqualifier even though it could. Mr. Starling understands that this does not mean that there will be no parole disqualifier as the court may impose a parole disqualifier as a condition of sentence if found guilty." 188 N.J.Super. at 129 n. 1, 456 A.2d 125. The defendant's statements following repeated waiver of rights, including the right to counsel, was found admissible.
Justice Pollock pointed out in Sanchez that the United States Supreme Court held in Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988), that waiver of the right to counsel post-indictment in response to Miranda warnings constituted a waiver of the Sixth as well as the Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
Adoption of N.J.R.E. 410 would expand the "scope of the exclusion [and constitute] a change in current New Jersey practice" and might overrule State v. Boyle, supra. Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on the Rules of Evidence, comment to N.J.R.E. 410. While examining the issue of voluntariness, Boyle involved a defendant with counsel at the time of the plea discussions and did not examine the right to counsel issue. Further, it involved a defendant's unilateral decision to "abrogate a previously negotiated plea agreement." 198 N.J.Super. at 73, 486 A.2d 852. For present purposes, we note that Boyle may be read to permit the introduction of a voluntary statement made during plea negotiations where counsel was present.
We do not intend to apply this holding to a prosecutor's promise to advise the judge of cooperation or to recommend leniency or to other promises which do not involve specific sentences.
Defendant claims that the waiver of his right to jury trial was "conditional" because it was to assure an earlier trial date which did not materialize. He does not otherwise substantively or procedurally claim prejudice because he received a bench trial while his brother was simultaneously tried to a jury. We do not address the propriety of that procedure. Nor need we address the other issues raised by defendant.