STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. YOON S. CHOI (17-05-0264, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5638-18

On December 9, 2014, defendant Yoon Choi stabbed his former girlfriend, Myung Jeon, in a Subway restaurant during an argument; the assault was captured on surveillance and witnessed by bystanders.
Jeon suffered catastrophic cervical spinal cord injuries, was hospitalized, and died on July 6, 2016 from complications related to the stab wounds.
Police interviewed Choi at the station; he had limited English but signed a Miranda waiver after detectives read the warnings aloud; he then gave a confession describing the dispute and stabbing.
Choi moved to suppress his statements; the trial court denied suppression, finding his Miranda waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
A jury convicted Choi of first-degree murder and weapon offenses; the court sentenced him to 45 years with 38.25 years of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act.
On appeal Choi challenged (1) denial of suppression, (2) failure to instruct passion/provocation manslaughter, (3) scope of treating physicians’ testimony, and (4) excessiveness of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Validity of Miranda waiver/suppression	State: waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Choi responded appropriately and waived rights on the record	Choi: limited English meant waiver was not knowing or voluntary; suppression should have been granted	Court: affirmed denial; trial court’s factual findings supported waiver beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Failure to instruct passion/provocation manslaughter	State: evidence did not support passion/provocation; words alone insufficient	Choi: jury should have been instructed on passion/provocation as lesser-included offense	Court: no plain error; record did not support an adequate provocation instruction
3. Admissibility/scope of treating physicians’ testimony	State: treating doctors testified to diagnosis, treatment, prognosis permissible under N.J.R.E. 701	Choi: testimony exceeded lay-opinion scope and was improper expert testimony	Court: no plain error; testimony limited to diagnosis/treatment and within treating-physician scope
4. Excessive sentence	State: sentence within statutory range and supported by findings (risk of reoffense, deterrence)	Choi: 45-year term with lengthy parole bar is excessive	Court: affirmed; sentencing court acted within discretion and relied on competent, credible evidence

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and waiver standard)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000) (prosecutor must prove waiver knowing, intelligent, voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (2009) (totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness)
State v. Denofa, 187 N.J. 24 (2006) (lesser-included offense instruction principles)
State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364 (2012) (elements and limits of passion/provocation manslaughter)
State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402 (1990) (elements of passion/provocation)
Delvecchio v. Twp. of Bridgewater, 224 N.J. 559 (2016) (treating physicians may testify as lay witnesses regarding diagnosis/treatment)
Stigliano v. Connaught Lab'y, Inc., 140 N.J. 305 (1995) (scope of treating physician testimony)
State v. Miller, 237 N.J. 15 (2019) (standard of appellate review for sentencing)
State v. Coles, 218 N.J. 322 (2014) (deference to trial court factfindings on suppression)