STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICO PARKS(12-06-0475, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3753-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Defendant Rico Parks was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and third-degree possession of a weapon; sentenced to life with an 85% parole bar and concurrent five years on the weapons count.
- Victim Thya Wilson was found dead in the apartment building hallway after suffering blunt and sharp force injuries; medical examiner determined death occurred two days before discovery and there were defensive wounds.
- Evidence at trial: neighbors heard and saw suspicious activity; blood and a kitchen knife with the victim's blood were found in the bedroom/closet; a suitcase in the closet contained the victim's blood; defendant had a swollen, bruised hand photographed after the incident.
- Defendant gave a videotaped confession at the prosecutor’s office after being Mirandized; he admitted to assaulting Wilson, using a metal object, cleaning the body, placing it in a suitcase, and moving it to the hallway.
- At the suppression hearing defendant argued his waiver was invalid because police did not tell him he was the target/suspect; the trial court found the waiver voluntary and admissible.
- At sentencing the court found multiple aggravating factors (nature/circumstances, victim vulnerability, risk of reoffense, extensive criminal history, need to deter) and no mitigating factors; defendant appealed suppression and sentencing rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of confession: Was defendant’s Miranda waiver knowing and voluntary where police did not state he was the target? | State: Waiver was knowing and voluntary; police warnings and the totality of circumstances were sufficient. | Parks: Waiver invalid because officers did not inform him he was the suspect/target at outset. | Affirmed: Under totality, defendant’s status was ambiguous; Nyhammer controls — failure to say "suspect" is one factor, not dispositive; waiver valid. |
| Applicability of State v. A.G.D. to suppression issue | State: A.G.D. is distinguishable; here no complaint/warrant issued before interview and suspect status ambiguous. | Parks: Relied on A.G.D. to argue statements involuntary/waiver invalid. | Affirmed: A.G.D. distinguishable; Nyhammer more pertinent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support aggravating factor (nature/circumstances) | State: Brutal, senseless attack and cover-up (suitcase) support factor one. | Parks: Factor one improperly applied. | Affirmed: Brutal, repeated force and concealment supported factor one. |
| Aggravating factor two (victim vulnerability) and overall sentence excessiveness | State: Victim was asleep/helpless when attack began; criminal history and deterrence also supported sentence. | Parks: Factor two unsupported; sentence manifestly excessive. | Affirmed: Victim was asleep when attack began; record supports factors and the sentence does not shock the conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003) (discussed by defendant as precedent on voluntariness and suspect notification)
- State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (2009) (primary controlling case: failure to say "suspect" is one factor under totality; warnings and questioning can make suspect status clear)
- State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000) (framework that confession admissibility requires waiver knowing, intelligent, voluntary under totality of circumstances)