State v. S.S. (077486) (Hudson and Statewide), A-84-15

Defendant S.S. was convicted at a 2011 trial of aggravated sexual assault and endangering a child; the Appellate Division later ordered a new trial on unrelated grounds.
Before the retrial, defendant moved to suppress video-recorded statements from a Hudson County interrogation, arguing police violated his Miranda right to remain silent.
The only evidence at the suppression hearing was the interrogation video; the trial court relied solely on that recording and found that defendant invoked his right to remain silent when he said, “No, that’s all I got to say. That’s it.”
The trial court suppressed all statements made after that utterance, concluding police failed to scrupulously honor the invocation as required under state law and Miranda/Mosley principles.
A two-member Appellate Division panel reversed after conducting a de novo review of the video, emphasizing defendant’s tone and the flow of the interview and concluding he had not invoked the right.
The Supreme Court granted certification to resolve (1) the proper appellate standard when factfinding rests solely on video evidence, and (2) whether defendant invoked his right to remain silent.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of appellate review for trial-court factual findings based solely on video/documentary evidence	Appellate courts may review such factual findings de novo because the recording is equally available to all courts	Trial-court factfindings should get traditional deference; appellate courts should not substitute their view absent clear error	Trial courts’ factual findings based on video evidence are ordinarily entitled to deferential review and must be upheld unless clearly mistaken; Diaz‑Bridges de novo rule rejected
Whether S.S. invoked his right to remain silent during the interrogation	The video shows defendant’s tone/flow indicated he was not invoking silence; appellate de novo review supports admissibility	Defendant’s words (“that’s all I got to say. That’s it”) objectively invoked the right; if ambiguous, officers had to clarify or stop	The trial court’s finding that defendant invoked his right at that point is supported by sufficient credible evidence; statements after that point are suppressed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional requirement to advise of and respect right to remain silent)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (police must scrupulously honor invocation of right to cut off questioning)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (police must stop interrogation when suspect unambiguously invokes Fifth Amendment right)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (deference to trial factfinder; clearly erroneous standard)
State v. Diaz‑Bridges, 208 N.J. 544 (2011) (previously authorized de novo appellate review of facts drawn solely from video; overruled here)
State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123 (state rule that even ambiguous attempts to terminate questioning must be diligently honored)