State v. Melendez, 30 A.3d 320

Melendez was convicted of murder, second-degree weapon offense, and unlawful possession of a weapon, receiving an aggregate life sentence with NERA terms.
The key issue is whether inculpatory statements made after Melendez invoked counsel were admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda.
Police questioned Melendez at the scene about the location of a handgun discarded in a public area, after he had invoked the right to counsel and after Miranda warnings were provided.
The trial court admitted the statements, relying on the public safety exception, or in the alternative, a voluntary waiver of rights.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the admission of the statements but remanded to reflect the merger of the second-degree weapon possession conviction into the murder conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-Miranda waiver can be valid under public safety	Melendez the public safety exception applies post-Miranda only to pre-warning scenarios	Public safety exception cannot excuse failure to honor right to counsel after invocation	Public safety exception does not excuse invocation; however, valid waiver supports admission
Whether Melendez initiated further questioning after counsel request	State initiated and lawfully elicited location of weapon under emergency rationale	Once counsel was invoked, interrogation should have stopped unless voluntary waiver occurred	Court found initiation was voluntary and waiver valid, supporting admissibility of statements
Whether diminished capacity should have been charged/considered	Evidence supported a potential diminished-capacity defense requiring instruction	Evidence did not warrant diminished-capacity instruction given trial strategy and lack of nexus	Trial court did not err; no plain error in failing to instruct on diminished capacity

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1984) (public safety exception to Miranda before warnings)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel must be scrupulously honored until counsel is present)
State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601 (N.J. 2007) (public safety exception adopted in New Jersey; limits and context)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (determinative framework for interrogation and custodial warnings)
State v. Lozada, 257 N.J. Super. 260 (App. Div. 1992) (initiation and voluntariness of statements after invocation)
State v. Burris, 145 N.J. 509 (1996) (need for knowing, intelligent waiver after initiation)
State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252 (N.J. 1986) (distinction between Miranda violation and self-incrimination violation)