NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3850-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTWON T. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted July 25, 2017 – Decided August 4, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
Indictment No. 14-12-1384.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Theresa Yvette Kyles, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).
Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri,
II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant
Antwon T. Smith pled guilty to first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(1), and was sentenced, per the plea agreement, to a prison
term of thirty years without parole. He appeals from the
conviction, presenting the following point of argument concerning
the suppression issue:
POINT I
BECAUSE SMITH'S FIFTH-AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE
VIOLATED BY THE FAILURE OF THE POLICE TO
TERMINATE QUESTIONING, OR TO CLARIFY SMITH'S
INTENT, WHEN HE AT LEAST AMBIGUOUSLY ASSERTED
HIS RIGHT TO SILENCE, THE ORDER DENYING
SMITH'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS STATEMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED. U.S. CONST., AMENDS. V,
XIV.
After reviewing the record, including the DVD of defendant's
statement to the police, we affirm substantially for the reasons
stated by Judge Barry A. Weisberg in his oral opinion issued on
September 24, 2015, following the Miranda1 hearing. We add the
following brief discussion.
The case involved the fatal shooting of Robert Bailey in
Carteret. The shooting was captured by a security camera, and
defendant was one of the individuals in the security video.
Defendant, who was twenty-eight years old at the time, was arrested
the day after the shooting, based on an outstanding municipal
warrant. While he was being questioned about the shooting,
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d
694 (1966).
2 A-3850-15T2
defendant was shown two still photos taken from the video. He
admitted that he was in the first photo, but claimed he did not
know the other individuals in the photo. The police then showed
him a second photo, describing it to defendant as: "This is you,
this is a gun. All right? You shot this guy in the back of the
head. It's on camera." He then asked the police to give him his
cell phone so that he could speak with his mother.
Defendant repeated that request multiple times during the
interview, assuring the police that they could put the cell phone
on speaker mode so they could hear the conversation he would have
with his mother. At no point did defendant refuse to speak to the
police unless he could speak to his mother first. Nor did he
indicate that he wanted her advice. Eventually, defendant
explained that he just wanted to tell his mother that he loved her
and that, as he put it, he had "fucked up." In other words, he
wanted his mother to hear the bad news from him before she heard
it from the police.
As the Supreme Court has recently reminded us, our review of
the trial judge's factual findings is deferential, and that
deference includes trial court findings based on the video of a
police interrogation. State v. S.S., __ N.J. __, __ (2017) (slip
op. at 16-17) (overruling State v. Diaz-Bridges, 208 N.J. 544, 566
(2012), to the extent that it adopted a de novo standard of
3 A-3850-15T2
appellate review). In S.S., the Court also reiterated the
principle that even an ambiguous assertion of the right to remain
silent requires that the police stop questioning the suspect until
the ambiguity is resolved.
In that light, "[a]ny words or conduct that
reasonably appear to be inconsistent with
defendant's willingness to discuss his case
with the police are tantamount to an
invocation of the privilege against self-
incrimination." In those circumstances in
which the suspect's statement is susceptible
to two different meanings, the interrogating
officer must cease questioning and "inquire
of the suspect as to the correct
interpretation."
[Id. at __ (slip op. at 19) (quoting State v.
Bey II, 112 N.J. 123, 136 (1988)).]
Thus, the Court agreed with the trial court's determination
that S.S. invoked his right to remain silent when he told the
police, "that's all I got to say. That's it." Id. at __ (slip
op. at 21). On the other hand, if a suspect's statement cannot
fairly be construed as being even an ambiguous invocation of the
right to remain silent, the interrogation need not stop. Diaz-
Bridges, supra, 208 N.J. at 566-67. S.S. did not affect that
portion of the holding in Diaz-Bridges. Thus, merely asking to
speak to a parent is not necessarily an invocation of the right
to silence. Diaz-Bridges, supra, 208 N.J. at 567.
4 A-3850-15T2
On this record, we find no basis to second-guess Judge
Weisberg's findings that the defendant's confession was voluntary,
his will was not overborne, and his requests to speak with his
mother were not an expression of his wish to stop answering
questions. Similarly to the defendant in Diaz-Bridges, defendant
here was asking to speak to his mother so that he could tell her
he loved her and let her know that he had done something terrible.
See Diaz-Bridges, supra, 208 N.J. at 570. Unlike State v. Maltese,
222 N.J. 525, 546 (2015), defendant did not indicate that he wanted
to get his mother's advice or that he wanted to stop talking to
the police until he obtained her advice. We find no basis to
disturb the trial court's conclusion that, under the totality of
the circumstances, defendant was not invoking his right to silence.
As a result, the police did not violate defendant's Miranda rights
when they continued to question him.
Affirmed.
5 A-3850-15T2