STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTWON T. SMITH (14-12-1384, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3850-15T2
N.J. Super. App. Div. UAug 4, 2017Background
- Defendant Antwon T. Smith was arrested the day after a fatal shooting captured on security video; still photos from the video were shown during police questioning.
- During interrogation, police told Smith the second photo showed him with a gun and that he shot the victim in the head.
- Smith repeatedly asked to use his cell phone to call his mother and insisted the officers could put the call on speaker; he said he wanted to tell his mother he loved her and had "f*ed up."
- Smith did not expressly say he would not answer questions until he spoke with his mother or that he sought her legal advice.
- After the suppression motion was denied, Smith pled guilty to first-degree murder and appealed, arguing his Fifth Amendment right to silence was violated when questioning continued after his request to call his mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith's repeated requests to call his mother constituted an invocation (or even ambiguous invocation) of the right to remain silent requiring police to stop questioning | State: Requests were not an invocation of the right to silence; Smith merely sought to tell his mother he loved her and to break bad news | Smith: Repeatedly asking to call his mother amounted to at least an ambiguous assertion of the right to remain silent, requiring police to clarify or cease questioning | Court affirmed: the trial judge properly found no invocation of the right to silence; questioning could continue under the totality of the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (establishes Miranda warnings and protections against compelled self-incrimination)
- State v. Diaz-Bridges, 208 N.J. 544 (N.J. 2012) (clarifies when questioning must stop for invocation of right to silence)
- State v. Bey (Bey II), 112 N.J. 123 (N.J. 1988) (an ambiguous assertion of the privilege requires police to clarify)
- State v. Maltese, 222 N.J. 525 (N.J. 2015) (discusses invocation and the need for clarification when suspect requests counsel or otherwise invokes rights)
- State v. S.S., N.J. (N.J. 2017) (reminded courts to defer to trial court findings from interrogation videos and reiterated that ambiguous invocations require clarification)