State of New Jersey v. K.H., 338 A.3d 961

Defendant K.H. was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and burglary arising from an attack on a hotel housekeeper (M.C.) in Atlantic City in 2020.
Police collected DNA evidence from the victim and obtained defendant's DNA via a buccal swab, allegedly with his consent while in custody.
Defendant moved to suppress the DNA evidence, claiming his consent was coerced and obtained after he invoked his Miranda rights.
The trial court denied the suppression motions and limited the defense’s ability to impeach the detective who collected the DNA.
Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to 54 years under the No Early Release Act; on appeal, he argued various constitutional, evidentiary, and sentencing issues.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded the sentence due to recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring jury findings for persistent offender enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of DNA Consent	Consent was voluntary and knowing; no coercion.	Defendant's consent to buccal swab was coerced, based on false promises and requested after invoking Miranda rights.	Consent was valid; no credible evidence of coercion; even if invalid, DNA would be admissible under inevitable discovery.
Post-Miranda Consent	No violation; police may seek consent after right to silence invoked.	Consent could not be validly obtained after invoking right to counsel.	Amang rule applies only if right to counsel specifically invoked; here, no credible evidence defendant requested counsel.
Exclusion of Detective Cruse as Defense Witness	Exclusion proper to avoid jury confusion; chain of custody not at issue.	Precluded from impeaching credibility and challenging procedures; deprived of right to present defense.	No abuse of discretion; exclusion did not result in unfair trial given overwhelming evidence.
Persistent Offender Sentencing	Judge imposed extended term per state law.	Jury, not judge, must find persistent offender facts given new SCOTUS rule.	Sentence vacated and remanded for jury determination per Erlinger and Carlton.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (establishing the standard for voluntary consent to search under the Fourth Amendment)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (setting the requirement for time and manner of warnings before custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (limiting police interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to counsel)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (establishing standards for reinitiation of questioning after right to silence asserted)
State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975) (articulating NJ-specific requirements for valid consent to search)
State v. King, 44 N.J. 346 (1965) (identifying factors relevant to voluntariness of consent)
State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (1985) (articulating the New Jersey version of the inevitable discovery exception)
State v. Camey, 239 N.J. 282 (2019) (discussing inevitable discovery and independent source doctrines for suppression of evidence)
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) (requiring jury findings for persistent offender enhancements under Sixth Amendment)