State v. Kingkamau Nantambu
113 A.3d 1186
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Atlantic City police investigated allegations by Crystal Aikens that Kingkamau Nantambu threatened her with a gun; a gun was later found in his apartment and he was charged with weapons offenses.
- Aikens agreed at the prosecutor’s request to place a recorded consensual phone call to Nantambu from outside the prosecutor’s office; detectives monitored and recorded via a digital recorder connected to earpieces and Aikens’ speakerphone.
- During the call Aikens told Nantambu she saw him put the gun in a case; immediately after that statement the recorder stopped (wires disconnected when the device fell), producing ~2 minutes of unrecorded conversation before recording resumed.
- Detectives testified they heard the unrecorded portion (one said both sides; the other said only Aikens) and claimed nothing relevant was said; prosecutors added tampering/bribery charges based on the call and texts.
- Trial court suppressed the entire recording as unduly prejudicial because the omission occurred at a critical point; the Appellate Division reversed and admitted the tape in full; the Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nantambu) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inadvertent omission in a recording requires suppression of the entire tape | Omission of a short segment does not automatically render the whole recording untrustworthy; admission appropriate if recording is otherwise reliable | Omission occurred at a critical point (immediately after Aikens’ accusation) and invites speculation about defendant’s response; entire tape should be excluded | Two-step test: court must first decide if omission is unduly prejudicial; if so, determine whether entire recording or only part is untrustworthy; redact only the prejudicial portion rather than automatically excluding whole tape |
| Proper interpretation/application of Driver factors (operator competence and deletions) | Existence of an audible recording and overall reliability satisfy operator competence; omission goes to weight, not per se admissibility | Operator incompetence (outdoors, unsecured setup) and the deletion undermine trustworthiness under Driver | Driver remains relevant but operator-competence should be viewed liberally given technology; focus on recording reliability rather than operator formality |
| If omission is unduly prejudicial, whether redaction and partial admission are permissible | Recording can be admitted in part and redacted under N.J.R.E. 105; exclusion of only prejudicial segment is appropriate | Entire recording must be excluded because the omitted response is central to the weapons charge and would force defendant to testify to rebut | Court approves redaction approach: admit tape up to and including defendant’s statement “Nobody seen the gun that day,” and exclude subsequent portion that would force juror speculation |
| Standard of review for admissibility determinations | Trial court has discretion on evidentiary rulings but legal conclusions reviewed de novo | Same | Two-part, objective Rule 104/N.J.R.E. 403 analysis required; factual findings afforded deference but legal application is de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 (N.J. 1962) (established multi-factor test for admissibility of recordings)
- State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518 (N.J. 1972) (admissibility principles for tapes and partial inaudibility)
- State v. Cusmano, 274 N.J. Super. 496 (App. Div. 1994) (operator-competence factor viewed liberally; trustworthiness is central)
- State v. Zicarelli, 122 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1973) (tape with partial inaudibility admissible for limited purposes; redaction appropriate)