1. Ken Vercammen, family & dog wish you Happy Holidays
2. Holiday Gift Idea! .....Buy Gift Certificates for Wills or Power of Attorney
3. Lexi Vercammen dog and Shannon’s dog Daisy wish you Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas
4 Recent case Unsolicited hospital statement by drunk driver admissible at trial
1. Ken Vercammen, family & dog wish you Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas
It was a good year for the Vercammen family. We bought a house in Neptune with a view of water so family can get together similar to my parents house in the Poconos. My daughter Shannon and husband Zach Gildenberg had our grandson Logan John on June 7. My son Dr. Brendan the dentist enjoys his house & boat on the Intercoastal in Myrtle Beach. Lexi dog continues to greet clients in the office. My wife Cynthia helps the law office finances. My Dad Al celebrated his 91st birthday with many friends both he and Carol made in Jackson.
One of the pleasures of this holiday season is to thank many people for their friendship, goodwill and the pleasant association I have enjoyed with the hundreds of friends and professional people I have dealt with over the past thirty years. We sincerely appreciate our relationships and are thankful for the confidence many people have shown in us. I again want to take the time to extend to these friends our sincere gratitude because it is friends and new clients that make our business grow. Client recommendation is a very important source of new clients to us.
In the true spirit of the Holiday and Christmas season, may we all be thankful and share in the hope for goodwill toward all.
Best regards,
KENNETH VERCAMMEN
Chair ABA Estate Planning & Probate Committee Solo & Small Firm Division
2. Holiday Gift Idea! .....Buy Gift Certificates for Wills or Power of Attorney
During the Holiday season, we often buy gifts for our family and friends. May we suggest a holiday gift, which truly shows how much you care? Purchase a Will Gift Certificate for loved ones. Secure their interests and make sure proper planning is done.
The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen's Holiday special includes:
*A Basic Will without Trust
* Follow up legal advice
*A 2-year subscription to the NJ Laws Email News
- All for only $450.00! -
Call 732-572-0500 for the Gift Certificate
Details on Wills:
http://www.njlaws.com/wills.htm
Details on Power of Attorney:
http://www.njlaws.com/power_of_attorney.htm
3. Lexi Vercammen dog and Shannon’s dog Daisy wish you Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas
See also Singing Yellow Lab puppies like Lexi dog
Caroling Canines! Click link, then click the red arrow
https://www.americangreetings.com/detail/ecards/christmas/caroling-canines-ecard/pn/prod3113541
4. Recent case Unsolicited hospital statement by drunk driver admissible at trial
State v. Tiwana (A-36-22)
Defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area. But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission. Miranda warnings were therefore not required, and defendant’s statement -- that she “only had two shots prior to the crash” -- is admissible at trial.
The Court considers whether an investigating detective’s self-introduction to defendant Amandeep K. Tiwana at her bedside in the hospital following a car crash initiated a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent warranting the administration of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
On April 28, 2020, defendant, while driving in Jersey City, struck a police officer and collided with two police cruisers. Defendant and three injured officers were transported to Jersey City Medical Center. Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.268%, three times the legal limit. Detective Anthony Espaillat of the Regional Collision Investigation Unit of the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office arrived at the hospital and spoke first to the injured officers in the emergency room.
Two uniformed police officers were stationed outside the curtain separating defendant’s bed from other patients. Detective Espaillat walked up to defendant’s bed, introduced himself as a detective with the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and explained that he was assigned to investigate the accident. Espaillat testified that, as soon as he had spoken, defendant immediately complained of chest pain and said “she only had two shots prior to the crash.” Espaillat directed defendant not to make any other statements. He clarified that he did not come to the hospital to ask her questions and that he wanted to interview her at a later date at the Prosecutor’s Office. The entire interaction lasted “less than five minutes.” The next day, defendant went to the Prosecutor’s Office and invoked her Miranda rights.
A grand jury indicted defendant for three counts of assault by auto. Pretrial, the State moved to admit defendant’s statement at the hospital. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the State’s motion and the Appellate Division affirmed. Both courts found that a custodial interrogation occurred at the hospital and the detective’s failure to give Miranda warnings rendered defendant’s statement inadmissible. The Court granted leave to appeal. 253 N.J. 431 (2023).
HELD: Defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area. But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission. Miranda warnings were therefore not required, and defendant’s statement -- that she “only had two shots prior to the crash” -- is admissible at trial.
1. To protect a suspect’s right against self-incrimination, law enforcement officers must administer Miranda warnings when a suspect is in police custody and subject to interrogation. The parties do not dispute that defendant was in custody at the hospital. The sole issue is whether Detective Espaillat interrogated defendant in violation of his duty to first inform her of her right to remain silent.
2. The United States Supreme Court in Rhode Island v. Innis clarified that “interrogation” for Miranda purposes occurs when a suspect “is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent,” which may include “any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980). But the Supreme Court stressed that the police “cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions.” Id. at 301-02.
3. The Court reviews several New Jersey cases applying the Innis interrogation standard. For example, in State v. Hubbard, the Court concluded that the defendant was interrogated by police because “the targeted questions reflect[ed] a clear attempt on the part of the detective to cause defendant to incriminate himself.” 222 N.J. 249, 272 (2015). However, in State v. Beckler, the Appellate Division upheld the admissibility of the defendant’s custodial statements because they “were unsolicited, spontaneous, and not made in response to questioning or its functional equivalent.” 366 N.J. Super. 16, 25 (App. Div. 2004).
4. Here, defendant was not subject to a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent when she stated that she “only had two shots prior to the crash.” No questioning occurred and Espaillat could not have foreseen that his introduction was reasonably likely to elicit an immediate incriminating response. Rather, defendant spontaneously made an unsolicited incriminating statement while in custody. The trial court and Appellate Division relied heavily on the three police officers in or just outside defendant’s bed area at the time Espaillat introduced himself. That fact alone may establish custody, but it does not establish interrogation.
REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court.
decided November 20, 2023
