STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY IRIZARRY(12-08-0619, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1518-14T4

Defendant Anthony Irizarry and adult victim P.R. had sexual contact; DNA matched defendant to sperm found in anal swabs. No eyewitnesses to the alleged assault.
P.R. testified she was grabbed, threatened with a knife, driven to a desolate site, and forced to perform oral and anal sex; she reported the assault to police and underwent a forensic exam documenting anal injuries.
Defendant testified he was selling drugs that morning and that P.R. offered sex in exchange for drugs; he denied force and denied driving a vehicle that day.
Defendant was arrested on unrelated charges; Detective Valentin interviewed him but failed to advise him that charges/complaint had been filed (A.G.D. issue). The court suppressed the interview for the State’s case-in-chief but allowed its use for impeachment if defendant testified.
Defendant testified at trial; on cross-examination prosecutors extensively questioned him about his failure to give the sex-for-drugs account during the post-arrest interview. Jury convicted defendant of first‑degree aggravated sexual assault and third‑degree aggravated criminal sexual contact; acquitted on kidnapping/weapon/terroristic threats counts.
Appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial solely because cross‑examination about post‑arrest silence (given under A.G.D. circumstances) violated defendant’s right against compelled self-incrimination; other claims were rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecution cross-examining defendant about not telling police his exculpatory story during post-arrest interview	Cross-examination permissible to impeach testimony since defendant testified at trial	Improper use of post-arrest silence to impeach; A.G.D. informational failure made statements involuntary and silence privileged	Reversed: cross-examination about post-arrest silence improperly invaded right to remain silent given A.G.D. violation; error not harmless; new trial required
Duty to instruct jury on consent (sua sponte)	No direct argument by State; court considered whether consent instruction required	Defendant: omission deprived him of his only defense (consent)	Rejected: no sua sponte consent instruction required where State alleged force/ threats; not plain error
Failure to charge lesser-included offenses (second-degree sexual assault; fourth-degree sexual contact) sua sponte	State argued not required absent clear evidentiary basis	Defendant: evidence supported giving lesser charges as middle ground	Rejected: evidence did not clearly indicate lesser offenses; defendant never requested charges at trial
Sentence challenged as excessive (35‑year extended term subject to NERA)	State: sentence appropriate given persistent-offender status and aggravating factors	Defendant: manifestly excessive and abuse of discretion	Rejected: trial court properly considered aggravating/mitigating factors; sentence upheld if conviction stood

State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003) (police must inform suspect if a complaint or warrant has been filed before interrogation to ensure a knowing Miranda waiver)
State v. Deatore, 70 N.J. 100 (1976) (suspect's refusal to answer in custody cannot be used to draw adverse inferences)
State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551 (2005) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant's silence in custody to infer guilt)
State v. Tucker, 190 N.J. 183 (2007) (cross-examination may expose inconsistencies between voluntary post‑Miranda statements and trial testimony)
State v. Kucinski, 227 N.J. 603 (2017) (defendant waived right to silence where interview showed ongoing voluntary narrative; impeachment on inconsistencies permitted)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (appellate relief appropriate where trial errors are capable of producing unjust result)