State v. Anthony K. Cole (076255) (Middlesex and Statewide)
163 A.3d 302
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Victim severely slashed at a public Labor Day event; gloves found near scene with victim’s blood outside and skin cells inside that matched Cole’s DNA.
- Police arrested Anthony K. Cole months later, read Miranda rights, and recorded two sequential custodial interrogations with brief intervals when officers left the room.
- In the officers’ presence Cole was affable and denied involvement; during three short periods when he was alone on camera he muttered, mouthed obscenities, and put his hand down his pants.
- Trial court admitted the complete video recordings (including the segments when Cole was alone) as relevant to Cole’s credibility under N.J.R.E. 401 and not unduly prejudicial under N.J.R.E. 403; no limiting instruction was given.
- Prosecutor referenced the alone-on-camera conduct in summation and suggested it signaled guilt; Cole was convicted on multiple counts.
- Appellate Division reversed, treating the alone-on-camera segments as consciousness-of-guilt evidence and finding them inadmissible; New Jersey Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cole's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of video segments showing defendant alone during breaks | Entire recordings are admissible as relevant to credibility; videotape aids jury assessment of demeanor | Segments were post-interrogation and not part of interrogation; unreliable and prejudicial | Admission proper: segments relevant to credibility under N.J.R.E. 401 and not excluded by N.J.R.E. 403 (trial court’s discretion upheld) |
| Whether evidence should have been excluded as consciousness-of-guilt evidence | Trial court admitted segments for credibility, not as consciousness-of-guilt; different analytical path | Appellate Division treated segments as consciousness-of-guilt and excluded them | Supreme Court declined to analyze consciousness-of-guilt because evidence was admitted for credibility; did not adopt Appellate Division’s characterization |
| Failure to give a limiting instruction and standard of review | Trial court offered to give one; defense did not request it; plain error review applies | Lack of limiting instruction was error and could mislead jury | No plain error: omission not “clearly capable of producing an unjust result” given facts and other strong evidence |
| Prosecutor’s summation referencing alone-on-camera conduct beyond credibility use | Prosecutor may discuss credibility but must stay within purpose evidence was admitted | Argued prosecutor impermissibly vouched that the conduct showed guilt | Comment exceeded proper bounds but did not rise to plain error given overwhelming evidence; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
- State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533 (N.J. 2004) (videotaping statements enhances juror/judge credibility assessment)
- State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (N.J. 1988) (deferential review of trial court evidentiary rulings; clear error standard for 403 balancing)
- State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410 (N.J. 1993) (caution on prejudice and marginal probative value of consciousness-of-guilt evidence)
- State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114 (N.J. 2007) (need for strong limiting instruction when admitting post-crime conduct as consciousness-of-guilt)
- State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (N.J. 2015) (appellate deference to trial court evidentiary discretion)
- State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119 (N.J. 2008) (probative standard under N.J.R.E. 401)
- State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (N.J. 1982) (articulation of palpable abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Diaz-Bridges, 208 N.J. 544 (N.J. 2012) (treatment of custodial breaks and suppression issues; distinguishes but does not resolve post-interview alone-on-camera admissibility)