STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TERREL MANN(08-09-0837, 11-04-0359 AND 12-03-0271, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4091-14T3

Background

June 16, 2011: defendant Terrel (Terrell/Tyrell) Mann was at the scene where his brother was fatally shot; he had blood on him and told officers at the scene he "saw who did it."
Police asked Mann to accompany them to the station; he and his girlfriend rode in the same police car, were not handcuffed, and he was treated and questioned initially as a witness.
At the station Mann waited several hours while officers interviewed the girlfriend and processed the scene; officers took his bloody clothes/shoes and provided him a paper suit and jacket.
During the initial station interview Mann admitted firing a gun; officers then stopped, read Miranda warnings, and obtained a recorded, post‑Miranda statement and signed waiver.
Mann moved to suppress both pre‑Miranda and post‑Miranda statements as involuntary and made while in custody; the trial court denied suppression after credibility findings and expert testimony conflict.
Mann pleaded guilty to second‑degree unlawful possession of a weapon; he appealed denial of suppression. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre‑Miranda questioning at station was custodial interrogation	Police: questioning was investigatory of a witness, not custodial; Miranda not required	Mann: being transported, confined at station, deprived of clothes/shoes, and inability to leave made it custodial	Not custodial — Court found totality shows witness status until he admitted shooting and officers then Mirandized him
Whether post‑Miranda waiver and statements were voluntary and knowing	Police: defendant intelligently waived rights; prior Miranda exposure and videotape show comprehension and lack of coercion	Mann: cognitive limitations, shock, promises/threats and belief he had to produce gun coerced waiver	Waiver valid — Court credited State expert and video, finding waiver knowing, intelligent, voluntary
Impact of seizure of clothing/shoes on custody analysis	Police: seizure reasonable for hygiene/evidence and did not prevent obtaining clothing or render detention custodial	Mann: taking clothes and providing paper suit contributed to custody and coercion	Seizure not dispositive — Court found evidence seizure reasonable and not converting encounter into custody
Whether pre‑Miranda statements require suppression of post‑Miranda statements	N/A (State position was distinct stages)	Mann: if pre‑Miranda was custodial, post‑Miranda statements tainted and must be suppressed	Court: alternative note — if pre‑Miranda were custodial, post‑Miranda statements would also require suppression; but because pre‑Miranda was not custodial, statements admissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37 (standard of appellate review for suppression fact findings)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (deference to trial court based on witnessing testimony)
State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39 (distinguishing legal conclusions from factual review)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (totality of circumstances test for custodial interrogation)
State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (police request to go to station not always custodial)
State v. Purnell, 310 N.J. Super. 407 (App. Div.) (transport to station did not create custody)
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 (Miranda not implicated for non‑suspect investigative questioning)
State v. Pierson, 223 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div.) (investigatory questioning of non‑suspect witness)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249 (distinguishing custodial interrogation where questioning moved beyond aid of victim)
State v. Messino, 378 N.J. Super. 559 (App. Div.) (station interview found custodial where practical exit was blocked)
State v. O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148 (post‑Miranda statements may be tainted by prior custodial interrogation)