STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. URIAH HILL(14-05-0453, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3577-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Defendant Uriah Hill was charged after witnesses saw him strike and kick his then‑girlfriend near a gas station; surveillance video and hospital photos corroborated injuries.
- A 911 call from an eyewitness describing the assault was played to the jury; the caller did not testify because the State could not locate her.
- At the police station Hill gave a video‑recorded statement admitting he hit the victim; he was read Miranda rights, signed the card, and acknowledged understanding.
- The trial court denied Hill’s pretrial motion to suppress the video statement and admitted the 911 audio as evidence; Hill was convicted of third‑degree aggravated assault.
- The trial judge imposed an extended term as a persistent offender (7 years, 3 years parole ineligibility); Hill appealed asserting Miranda/Crawford/Clawans errors and that an aggravating factor was improperly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of stationhouse video statement (Miranda waiver) | State: Hill was informed, signed Miranda card, and voluntarily waived rights | Hill: Lack of explicit oral waiver; not given meaningful chance to decline waiver | Court: Affirmed — totality shows knowing, voluntary waiver (Miranda not violated) |
| Admissibility of 911 recording (Confrontation Clause) | State: 911 statements were non‑testimonial (ongoing emergency) and fit hearsay exceptions | Hill: Portions were testimonial and intertwined with non‑testimonial remarks, denying Crawford right | Court: Affirmed — objectively an ongoing emergency (Davis), admissible as present sense impression/excited utterance; harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Request for Clawans charge (adverse inference for missing 911 caller) | State: Caller not uniquely controlled by State; not essential; defendant could have produced her | Hill: Nonproduction warranted adverse‑inference instruction | Court: Affirmed denial — Clawans factors not met; caller’s testimony unlikely to help defense and not essential |
| Application of aggravating factor one at sentencing | State: Conduct (kicking victim while down and leaving her) justified factor one | Hill: Kicking did not exceed elements of aggravated assault; factor unsupported by record | Court: Reversed as to sentencing — factor one not supported; remand for resentencing without that factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (acknowledging prohibition on admitting testimonial statements absent prior cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (911 calls non‑testimonial when primary purpose is to address ongoing emergency)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver standards)
- State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162 (adverse‑inference charge when a party fails to produce a witness under certain conditions)
- State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360 (deference to trial court factual findings when waiver determined from video/documentary evidence)
- State v. Mara, 253 N.J. Super. 204 (aggravating factor one applied where injuries far exceeded statutory elements; relied on by trial court but distinguished here)