STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. G.A.L. (17-11-3192, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4839-18

Background

Mother (Sara) reported defendant had sexual relations with her 16-year-old daughter (Nicole); police arrested defendant at his workplace after he fled.
At the station defendant was Mirandized, signed a waiver, and was audio-recorded during interrogation.
Detectives played a surreptitious recording made by Nicole; defendant denied intercourse but admitted "touching" Nicole.
During the interview defendant repeatedly said phrases like "that's it" and said he would "get me a lawyer;" a supervising sergeant then asked whether he was done and terminated the interview.
Jury convicted defendant of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and fourth-degree obstruction; acquitted on several other counts.
Appellate Division affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing so the trial court can explain the fairness of imposing consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of custodial statements after repeated "that's it" invocations	Trial court properly admitted pre-invocation statements; only post-invocation remarks should be excluded; any error harmless.	Repeated "that's it" phrases were unambiguous invocations of the right to silence/counsel; statements after that point should have been suppressed and not played to jury.	Court found defendant actually invoked earlier than trial court ruled, so later statements should have been suppressed, but error was harmless because admissible admissions ("touching") and victim testimony supported convictions.
Admission of testimony about victim's out-of-court complaints (alleged hearsay)	Testimony was non-hearsay — offered to explain why events unfolded (why mother called police, officers pursued defendant), not to prove truth of allegations.	Testimony was hearsay and prejudicial; should have been excluded or limited.	Statements were non-hearsay as offered; admission not plain error and no limiting instruction required.
Omission of "false in one, false in all" jury instruction	Court's standard credibility instructions sufficiently informed jury how to weigh testimony.	Nicole gave inconsistent/contradictory testimony; court should have given the false-in-one instruction sua sponte.	No plain error; inconsistencies were inadvertent or immaterial and the charge given adequately covered credibility assessment.
Sentencing — failure to explain fairness of consecutive sentences	Trial court addressed Yarbough factors; consecutive sentence appropriate.	Court limited its focus to Yarbough factors and declined to expressly consider overall fairness as required; remand needed.	Remanded for resentencing so trial court can explicitly explain the fairness of imposing consecutive sentences (Torres/Abdullah principles).

Key Cases Cited

State v. Alston, 204 N.J. 614 (N.J. 2011) (guidance on invoking Miranda rights and ambiguity analysis)
State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252 (N.J. 1986) (invocation of right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored)
State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360 (N.J. 2017) (police may ask clarifying questions only when invocation is ambiguous)
State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (N.J. 2021) (trial courts must explain overall fairness when imposing aggregate/consecutive sentences)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (N.J. 1985) (factors governing imposition of consecutive sentences)
State v. Maltese, 222 N.J. 525 (N.J. 2015) (standard of review for admission of police-obtained statements)