State v. Vincenty, 202 A.3d 1273

Adrian Vincenty, a Spanish-only speaker incarcerated at Garden State Correctional Facility, was interviewed by Detectives Glackin and Mera about a March 20, 2011 attempted murder/robbery; Vincenty’s DNA was found on a mask recovered at the scene and he was identified from surveillance video.
Detective Mera (Spanish-fluent) read Miranda rights from a bilingual form, which Vincenty signed; detectives began questioning him and at points told him generally that charges existed but did not initially state the specific charges.
Only later in the recorded interview did detectives show Vincenty a list identifying attempted homicide, robbery, and conspiracy charges; upon learning specifics Vincenty expressed surprise and then asked for a lawyer, at which point questioning stopped.
A grand jury later indicted Vincenty on multiple counts including first-degree attempted murder and armed robbery; Vincenty moved to suppress statements to the detectives, arguing noncompliance with State v. A.G.D. and premature continued questioning after requesting counsel.
The trial court suppressed statements made after Vincenty requested counsel but denied suppression of earlier statements, finding Vincenty was informed of charges before making incriminating statements; the Appellate Division affirmed; Vincenty preserved the suppression issue in a guilty plea and sought review.

Issue	Vincenty’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether detectives complied with A.G.D. by informing suspect of charges before seeking Miranda waiver	Detectives failed to inform him of the specific charges when asking him to waive, so waiver was not knowing/intelligent	Use totality-of-the-circumstances; suspect was sufficiently apprised and knowingly waived	Court: A.G.D. required disclosure of the essence of charges before waiver; detectives failed to do so, so waiver was invalid
Whether error was harmless given guilty plea	Suppression violation could have affected decision to plead; he reserved right to appeal	Statements were not inculpatory and could not have influenced plea; any error harmless	Court: State waived harmless-error argument; some statements were arguably inculpatory; cannot deem error harmless
Standard of review for suppression ruling	N/A (Vincenty argued legal issue)	Trial court factual findings are entitled to deference; legal conclusion reviewed de novo	Court applied deference to factual findings but reviewed legal question de novo and reversed on legal grounds
Whether interrogation violated Miranda principles beyond A.G.D.	Continued questioning after request for counsel should be suppressed (State conceded post-invocation statements)	State conceded suppression of post-request statements; primary dispute was A.G.D. compliance	Court affirmed suppression should have occurred under A.G.D.; earlier statements not shown to be knowingly waived

State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56, 835 A.2d 291 (2003) (failure to inform suspect that complaint or warrant has been filed deprives suspect of information necessary for a knowing, intelligent waiver)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishing requirements for Miranda warnings and waiver of Fifth Amendment rights)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304, 748 A.2d 1108 (2000) (State bears burden to prove waiver of right against self-incrimination was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 118 A.3d 314 (2015) (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression review; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)