STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GERALD D. LAPHAN(14-09-0140, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3437-15T2

Background

Defendant Gerald D. Laphan was convicted by a jury of second-degree offering/distributing child pornography (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(a)) and fourth-degree possession (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(b)) based largely on a recorded, redacted custodial statement and forensic evidence from two computers seized from his bedroom.
ICAC Task Force detected child-pornography files on a peer-to-peer network tied to an IP address for a Mount Ephraim residence; police executed a search warrant and seized two computers from defendant’s bedroom.
Forensic examiners imaged the hard drives, found evidence of FrostWire/LimeWire and 265 files containing child pornography, and linked the machine to the earlier single-source downloads of three videos.
At the station, after Miranda warnings, defendant gave a lengthy recorded statement in which he acknowledged illegal material on his laptop, described using FrostWire and Torrents, claimed a friend had placed some files, admitted viewing some files a few times, and acknowledged a shared folder.
Defense theory: a friend (not defendant) downloaded the material earlier; defendant tried to delete what he saw and lacked intent to distribute. The defense used the redacted statement at trial to support that theory.
Trial court admitted the negotiated redacted statement; the jury convicted. On appeal defendant raised multiple challenges to the statement’s admission, voluntariness, redactions, prosecutorial comments, exclusion of a text message, and jury instructions on technical terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Laphan)	Held
Admissibility/redaction of recorded custodial statement; failure to hold Rule 104(c) hearing	Statement was properly Mirandized, redactions were negotiated and admissible; no voluntariness issue preserved	Trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary Rule 104(c) hearing and admitting the taped, redacted statement	Affirmed — defendant invited the error by agreeing to admission and using the statement in his defense, so appellate challenges on these grounds are barred (invited error)
Voluntariness / Miranda waiver	Defendant received Miranda warnings and voluntarily waived rights; statement admissible	Waiver and voluntariness were not knowingly, intelligently, or freely made; statement should be excluded	Affirmed — no preserved challenge; invited error; no merit to belated voluntariness claims
Prosecutor’s summation comments referencing omissions in defendant’s statement / right to remain silent	Once defendant waived Miranda and used the statement, prosecution could fairly rely on what he said and omitted; cross-examination/argument about omissions permitted	Prosecutor improperly relied on defendant’s failure to explicitly deny downloading/offering in interrogation (never asked), violating right to silence	Affirmed — comments were permissible given defendant’s waiver and use of the statement; prosecutor’s references were fair comment on evidence
Exclusion of text message used to refresh recollection / admission as substantive evidence	The photograph of a text message was hearsay offered for truth and not admitted as a business record; State not required to subpoena carrier	The text message would corroborate an alibi (that defendant was elsewhere) and should have been admitted substantively	Affirmed — trial court properly excluded the document as inadmissible hearsay; N.J.R.E. 612 does not permit admitting the writing as substantive proof

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347 (N.J. 2004) (invited error doctrine prevents a party from urging a procedure at trial and later claiming it was error on appeal)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (N.J. 2010) (explains invited error and appellate bar where party urged course below)
State v. Kucinski, 227 N.J. 603 (N.J. 2017) (once defendant waives Miranda, omissions in his statement may be used on cross-examination and in closing)
State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (N.J. 2013) (defendant who uses a statement at trial is precluded from later arguing its admission requires reversal)
State v. Lyons, 417 N.J. Super. 251 (App. Div. 2010) (statutory language prohibiting distribution/offer of child pornography should be construed broadly to cover internet/file-sharing conduct)
State v. Cole, 229 N.J. 430 (N.J. 2017) (scope of fair comment by counsel and prosecutor; characterizations of evidence must be grounded in record)