State v. A.M., 205 A.3d 213

Background

Defendant (A.M.), a limited-English Spanish speaker, was videotaped during a custodial interrogation after alleged sexual contact with a minor; he signed a Spanish-language Miranda form and made incriminating statements.
A Spanish-speaking detective (Detective Ramos), a police officer, read Miranda warnings from a Spanish form, asked after each right "Entiende Usted?", wrote down "sí" and had defendant initial each line; defendant reviewed and signed the waiver paragraph but the officer did not read the entire waiver aloud.
The interview was translated orally by Detective Ramos and later transcribed into English by a prosecutor’s office clerk; the defense contested translation accuracy at a suppression hearing.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding from the videotape that defendant was alert, understood the warnings, reviewed and signed the waiver, and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
Appellate Division reversed, holding the State failed to prove an express waiver beyond a reasonable doubt and criticizing the use of a police officer as interpreter and paraphrased translations; a concurrence urged neutral certified interpreters.
New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, applying deferential review to the trial court’s factual findings and concluding the record supported an express, knowing, and voluntary waiver; the Court declined to require neutral interpreters in all limited-English interrogations.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived Miranda rights	Waiver was established: defendant heard Spanish warnings, said "sí," initialed and signed the waiver, and answered questions; defer to trial court's factual findings	Waiver not proven beyond a reasonable doubt given limited English, officer-translator, no reading of waiver aloud, and no inquiry into literacy	Held: Waiver was express and valid; trial court’s factual findings supported waiver beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether neutral/certified interpreters are required for limited-English suspects	Not required by rule or case law; deferential factfinding sufficed; better practice but not mandatory	Court should require qualified neutral interpreters for all limited-English interrogations to prevent error and coercion	Held: Court declined a per se requirement; encouraged use of capable translators and better practices but did not mandate neutral interpreters in every case.
Whether failing to read waiver aloud improperly shifted burden to defendant	State: No burden shift; totality of circumstances and video supported waiver	Appellate Div.: Trial court shifted burden by implying defendant must speak up about comprehension	Held: Failure to read entire form aloud was not fatal here; no improper burden shift given credible video evidence.
Whether translation/transcript adequacy requires exclusion or special procedures	State: Transcript need not be by certified neutral translator; defendant had opportunity to challenge under N.J.R.E. 104(c)	Defendant: Officer-translator and prosecutor-office transcriber created unreliability and prejudice	Held: Defendants may challenge translations at a Rule 104(c) hearing; inaccurate translation risks exclusion, but no per se defect here.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional requirement of warnings before custodial interrogation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (express statement not required for waiver; waiver may be shown by conduct)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (burden of proof for waiver under federal law)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (Miranda does not require police to provide extra information beyond warnings)
State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360 (deferential appellate review of trial court factfinding, including video evidence)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (New Jersey requires waiver proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (what suspect must understand for a valid Miranda waiver)
State v. Bey (II), 112 N.J. 123 (totality-of-circumstances approach to voluntariness)
State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237 (purpose of Miranda warnings and custodial environment)
State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392 (factors for totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (standard for disturbing trial court findings)
State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417 (appellate standard for review of legal conclusions in suppression rulings)
State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (support for upholding trial court factual findings)