State v. Kareem T. Tillery (079832) (Essex County and Statewide), 209 A.3d 866

Background

Kareem Tillery was arrested after five controlled purchases by an informant; the jury convicted him only for the April 3, 2013 sale of a .38 caliber handgun observed by police and captured on the informant's recording.
After arrest, detectives read a Miranda card and had Tillery sign it, but did not ask whether he understood or expressly waived his rights; the officer told him the signature acknowledged only that rights were read.
At an N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing the trial court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Tillery implicitly waived Miranda based on his responses, criminal history, and a comment that he was "going to jail regardless."
The trial court admitted Tillery’s post-arrest statement; the jury convicted on one weapon count and deadlocked on the rest.
At sentencing the court imposed a 20-year extended term (persistent offender) and relied in part on evidence relating to counts on which the jury deadlocked; the court later granted the State’s motion to dismiss those counts.
The Appellate Division affirmed; the Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding any Miranda-admission error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and upholding the extended-term sentence while cautioning about certain sentencing practices.

Issues

Issue	State / Prosecution Argument	Tillery / Defendant Argument	Held
Validity of Miranda waiver	Waiver may be implied; totality of circumstances shows voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver	No express waiver; signature and questioning procedure insufficient to prove waiver beyond a reasonable doubt	Majority: Implied waiver supported by most factors but police practice was flawed; any error in admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed
Admissibility of statement (if waiver invalid)	Even if erroneous, admission was harmless because overwhelming independent evidence supported conviction	Erroneous admission was prejudicial; confession central and not harmless	Majority: Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to strong independent evidence; Concurring justice agreed; dissent argued error was not harmless and would reverse
Use of evidence relating to counts with hung jury at sentencing	Court may consider reliable, trustworthy evidence from those counts when weighing aggravating factors	Considering pending charges violated presumption of innocence and improperly influenced sentence	Court: Trial judge should not rely on evidence of pending counts unless charges are dismissed or otherwise no longer pending; here consideration did not require resentencing because other competent evidence supported aggravating factors
Double use of prior record (eligibility + aggravating factors)	Prior record may properly establish statutory eligibility and also support aggravating factors	Argued impermissible double-counting	Court: Permissible; prior convictions are relevant to both eligibility and aggravating-factor analysis under precedent

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishing custodial-warning and waiver standards)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (waiver may be implied; uncoerced statement can establish waiver when warnings given and understood)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (discussion of interrogation methods and waiver burden)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional error)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000) (New Jersey requires State to prove waiver beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006) (framework for discretionary extended-term sentencing and eligibility)
State v. McCloskey, 90 N.J. 18 (1982) (rare application of harmless-error doctrine to unlawfully admitted confessions)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (federal sentencing consideration of acquitted conduct; discussed but distinguished)
State v. A.M., 237 N.J. 384 (2019) (totality-of-circumstances test for Miranda waiver; waiver need not be explicit)