State v. Miller
13 A.3d 873
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Two construction workers were robbed at a Irvington residence by Miller and a juvenile with a sawed-off shotgun; victims reported the robbery and police recovered the weapon after a chase and search of bushes.
- A grand jury indicted Miller on conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of first-degree robbery, burglary, weapon offenses, possession with unlawful purpose, and resisting arrest.
- Trial occurred August 26–31, 2008; witnesses included the two victims and police; a ballistics expert identified the weapon as a sawed-off shotgun.
- The court instructed the jury that Miller could not be compelled to testify and Miller did not testify; during deliberations the jury requested a read-back/playback of Pichaya’s testimony, which the court allowed via full video playback
- The jury found Miller guilty on all counts; sentencing imposed two consecutive fourteen-year terms for the robberies with 85% NERA, and other counts merged with concurrent shorter sentences; there was no explicit Yarbough analysis in the judgment.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing due to failure to expressly address Yarbough factors; this Court granted certification and remanded for resentencing with proper Yarbough analysis
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether playback of video testimony during deliberations was proper | Miller | Miller | Playback permissible; no reversible error |
| Whether the jury instruction on non-testimony violated Fifth Amendment rights | Miller | Miller | No plain error; instruction read in context did not mislead |
| Whether consecutive sentences complied with Yarbough factors | State | Miller | Remand for proper Yarbough analysis required |
| Whether trial court adequately explained reasons for consecutive sentences | State | Miller | Court failed to explicitly address Yarbough; remand necessary |
| Whether media form used created prejudice to Miller | State | Miller | Guidelines adopted to guard against prejudice; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119 (N.J. 2008) (videoed pretrial statements require safeguards against prejudice)
- Michaels, 264 N.J.Super. 579 (App.Div. 1993) (replay of videotaped testimony with safeguards against prejudice)
- Wilson, 165 N.J. 657 (N.J. 2000) (guides read-backs and playbacks; requires context and fairness)
- Wilkerson, 60 N.J. 452 (N.J. 1972) (broad discretion to conduct read-backs and playbacks; limits apply)
- Wolf, 44 N.J. 176 (N.J. 1965) (jurors’ request to review testimony should generally be granted)
- Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (N.J. 1985) (criteria for consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing; explicit reasons required)
- Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (N.J. 2010) (requires discernible reasoning for sentencing decisions; remand when unclear)