STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EVENS DUMAS (15-04-0466, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2207-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EVENS DUMAS, a/k/a
EVENA DUMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted April 20, 2020 – Decided June 24, 2020
Before Judges Rothstadt and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 15-04-0466.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (John Walter Douard, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Evens Dumas pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a)(1), (2) (count eleven), 1 admitting he brought a handgun to a planned
robbery of players at a card game, and shot and killed one of the players "during
the process of trying to take the money." Defendant specifically reserved his
right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the statement he made to
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office detectives. On appeal he argues:
[POINT ONE]
[DEFENDANT'S] PURPORTED WAIVER OF HIS
MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT
CUSTODIAL STATEMENTS, WERE NOT
KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN, AND
THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ADMITTED AT TRIAL.
1
Defendant, along with his three co-defendants, were indicted for second-
degree conspiracy to commit armed burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(b)(2) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count one); second-degree conspiracy to commit armed
robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count two); second-degree
burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (count three); first-degree
robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (counts four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine and ten); first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (count eleven); first-degree felony murder (burglary), N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a)(3) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (count twelve); first-degree felony murder
(robbery), N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (count thirteen); second-
degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (counts fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and seventeen); second-degree
possession of a handgun without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) and N.J.S.A.
2C:2-6 (counts eighteen, nineteen, twenty and twenty-one), and third-degree
hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 (count
twenty-two).
A-2207-18T4
2
We reject defendant's present arguments—some made for the first time on
appeal—and affirm substantially for the same reasons set forth by the motion
judge in his written decision based on his findings made after an evidentiary
hearing during which he heard testimony from one of the detectives who
interviewed defendant and watched and listened to the video recording of
defendant's statement.
We defer to those factual findings "unless they were 'clearly mistaken' or
'so wide of the mark' that the interests of justice require[] appellate intervention."
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 245 (2007) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)). That deferential standard is extended
to "factual findings based on a video recording or documentary evidence" to
ensure that New Jersey's trial courts remain "'the finder of the facts[.]'" State v.
S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381 (2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) advisory
committee's note to 1985 amendment). We recognize that "[p]ermitting
appellate courts to substitute their factual findings for equally plausible trial
court findings is likely to 'undermine the legitimacy of the [trial] courts in the
eyes of litigants, multiply appeals by encouraging appellate retrial of some
factual issues, and needlessly reallocate judicial authority.'" Id. at 380-81(second alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) advisory
A-2207-18T4
3
committee's note to 1985 amendment). Nevertheless, the motion judge's
application of his factual findings to the law is subject to plenary review. State
v. Cryan, 320 N.J. Super. 325, 328 (App. Div. 1999).
In his merits brief, defendant argues:
the police steadfastly pressured the young [defendant]
into signing a waiver and making an incriminating
statement. While apparently he was fed, he was
questioned intensely for four consecutive hours, then
left in the interrogation room after eating a meal for
another (unrecorded) three hours, and then interrogated
for another hour without rereading his Miranda[2]
rights.
Defendant did not argue to the motion judge that he was pressured to sign
the Miranda waiver form. We, therefore, need not address that argument. State
v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19 (2009) ("[T]he points . . . developed in proceedings
before a trial court define the metes and bounds of appellate review."); see also
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 337-38 (1971) (an appellate court "may decline to
accept [arguments] first raised on appeal," or alternatively, review those
arguments for plain error).
Moreover, defendant does not develop this unsupported argument in his
brief beyond that brief mention, thereby waiving that issue. N.J. Dep't of Envtl.
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477 (1966).
A-2207-18T4
4
Prot. v. Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 506 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (finding
that an issue raised in "a single sentence in [defendant's] brief" was waived
because defendant provided no supporting legal argument). And, nothing in the
record supports that defendant was pressured to sign the forms. Prior to reading
the forms to defendant, the detective merely confirmed he was obtaining the
water defendant requested and asked pedigree information. As such, there is no
merit in defendant's truncated argument.
Nor do we see that defendant raised the additional argument to the motion
judge that police did not stop questioning and inquire if defendant invoked his
right to remain silent when he told the detectives he "had nothing to say."
Although we need not consider this argument that the motion judge did not have
an opportunity to consider, Robinson, 200 N.J. at 19-20, we nonetheless
determine defendant's skewed interpretation of the actual words he used is
meritless.
As the judge found, the detective who testified at the suppression hearing
did most of the talking during the early part of the interview. Defendant
repeatedly denied any knowledge of the shooting before the colloquy quoted by
defendant in support of his present argument:
[DETECTIVE]: Come on, what you want to say?
A-2207-18T4
5
[DEFENDANT]: There ain’t nothing to say.
[DETECTIVE]: Cuz you don’t want to say anything?
[DEFENDANT]: It’s not cuz I don’t want to say
anything, there ain’t nothing to say. I got nothing to
say.
[(Emphasis added).]
If defendant made "a request, 'however ambiguous,' to terminate
questioning[, remain silent] or to have counsel present[, the request ] must be
diligently honored." State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252, 263 (1986) (quoting State
v. Kennedy, 97 N.J. 278, 288 (1984)). "[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 right to remain silent and a
desire to cease questioning. S.S., 229 N.J. at 382, 384 (quoting State v. Bey,
112 N.J. 123, 136 (1988)) (defendant invoked his right after stating: "No, that's
all I got to say. That's it"); State v. Johnson, 120 N.J. 263, 281 (1990) ("a suspect
who ha[d] 'nothing else to say' . . . asserted [his] right to remain silent" (citations
omitted) (quoting Christopher v. Florida, 824 F.2d 836, 842 (11th Cir. 1987))).
"If, however, 'following an equivocal indication of the desire to remain
silent,' the police are reasonably unsure whether the [defendant] was asserting
that right, they 'may ask questions designed to clarify whether the [defendant]
A-2207-18T4
6
intended to invoke his right to remain silent.'" Johnson, 120 N.J. at 283 (quoting
Christopher, 824 F.2d at 841-42). The police are entitled to resume questioning
if, in response to clarifying questions, the defendant indicates he is not invoking
his right; in which case, any confession obtained thereafter is admissible. See
ibid. ("[I]f the suspect makes clear that he is not invoking his Miranda rights
. . . substantive questioning [may] be resumed." (quoting State v. Wright,
97 N.J. 113, 120 n.4 (1984))).
In context, it is obvious defendant was not invoking his right to remain
silent or seeking to terminate the interrogation, but rather, was continuing to
deny any involvement in the crimes. See State v. Diaz-Bridges, 208 N.J. 544,
575 (2011) (Albin, J., dissenting) (noting that when determining whether a
defendant invoked his right to remain silent, "[t]he words used by a suspect are
not to be viewed in a vacuum, but rather in 'the full context in which they were
spoken.'" (quoting State v. Roman, 382 N.J. Super. 44, 64 (App. Div. 2005))).
Defendant’s remark that he had "nothing to say" was another denial of guilt.
Although defendant's remark did not amount to even an equivocal invocation,
the detective immediately asked for clarification. Defendant’s response
demonstrated that he was not attempting to end the conversation, but rather, was
denying any involvement in the crimes. The detectives were entitled to continue
A-2207-18T4
7
questioning. As such, the subsequent confession was not obtained by virtue of
a Miranda violation. See Johnson, 120 N.J. at 283.
We also see no mention to the motion judge of defendant's present
argument that the detectives' questioning was akin to the Reid method of
interrogation which produces false confessions, especially in juvenile offenders.
The detective was not questioned about the method during the evidentiary
hearing. Defendant contends the detectives "refused to listen to [his]
protestations of innocence, promised [him] leniency if he was truthful . . .,
blamed the poker-players even as the crime was minimized, expressed false
sympathy" and overbore his will in order to force a confession is meritless.
Again, although not required, Robinson, 200 N.J. at 19-20, we will address the
issue.
The Reid method of interrogation has been described by its critics as a
"nine-step sequence of social influence and techniques of persuasion [designed]
to systematically weaken suspects' resistance and to provide face-saving
rationales." State ex rel. A.W., 212 N.J. 114, 125 n.3 (2012) (alteration in
original) (quoting Barry C. Feld, Criminology: Police Interrogation of Juveniles:
An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 219,
236-37 (2006)). "[T]hese techniques include 'developing "techniques of
A-2207-18T4
8
neutralization" or psychological themes to justify or excuse the crime,'
'interrupting the suspect's attempts at denial,' and 'showing sympathy and urging
the suspect to tell the truth.'" Ibid. (quoting Feld, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology
at 236-37).
We note none of the Reid techniques complained of have been found to
be unduly coercive even when applied to juvenile suspects, which defendant—
twenty years-old3 on May 6, 2014, the date of the interview—was not. See id.
at 137-38 (declining to ban the use of the Reid method of interrogation on
juvenile’s offenders, and finding that even though the technique was used, the
juvenile defendant’s confession was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily
made and was not the result of an overborne will); see also State v. Reyes, 237
N.J. Super. 250, 258-60 (App. Div. 1989) (finding police did not overbear
defendant’s will by expressing sympathy and discussing forgiveness during the
interrogation), overruled on other grounds, State v. A.O., 397 N.J. Super. 8, 10
(App. Div. 2007).
Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, the detectives did not make any
promises of leniency; rather, they suggested that members "up the chain" of the
3
The presentence report lists defendant's date of birth in March 1994.
A-2207-18T4
9
criminal justice system liked to see cooperation. As the detective explained to
defendant:
We don’t stop after I talk to you. Or the investigation
doesn’t stop. It moves forward. And it goes in front of
. . . our bosses, it goes in front of the prosecutor,
eventually it goes in front of a judge. So the case moves
forward and we tell a story. And we tell a story based
on the facts of the case, based on what we observed,
based on people we talk to, based on a million different
things. We put the case together and we tell a story.
And a story has many, many different parts. And the
stories gonna be told. Whether you sit here and talk to
me or don’t talk to me, the stories gonna be told. But
I’m telling you, with a hundred percent certainty that
it’s a better story and it’s a better story for you and its
helpful to you because it’s all about cooperation,
especially in Bergen County, if you tell your part of the
story. Anything, I went up there, I didn’t know what I
was doing, I didn’t know where we’re going, things
went bad, whatever. Whatever story you want to tell me
but it’s a small little piece and it helps me explain it to
my boss, that’s who I’m going to have to talk to after I
leave here, and to their bosses and so on and so forth.
It helps them get an explanation on how things went
bad and . . . how things happened. Okay, because the
story gets told regardless.
The mere fact that the detective suggested that the story would "sound
better" if defendant gave his version of events was not the same as promising
him that he would receive leniency if he made a confession, see State v. Watford,
261 N.J. Super. 151, 163 (App. Div. 1992) (Haley, J., concurring) ("agent's
statement to defendant that it was in his best interest to cooperate was not a
A-2207-18T4
10
'promise'" (quoting Rachlin v. United States, 723 F.2d 1373, 1377-78 (8th Cir.
1983))), nor was such a suggestion "so manipulative or coercive [as to deprive
defendant] of his ability to make an unconstrained, autonomous decision to
confess," State v. Di Frisco, 118 N.J. 253, 257 (1990) (quoting Miller v. Fenton,
796 F.2d 598, 605 (3d. Cir. 1986)).
Moreover, defendant did not admit to anything during the initial part of
the interview. That part commenced at 2:08 p.m. and lasted for two hours and
forty-four minutes, after which defendant was transported by the detectives to
the Bergen County Sheriff's Department of Criminal Investigation (BCI) for
processing and to take buccal swab samples from defendant pursuant to a court
order. They left BCI for the return trip at about 7:30 p.m., stopped for food, and
arrived at the Prosecutor's Office at about 8:00 p.m., and ate dinner toget her.
The detectives then left defendant in the interview room while they met with
supervisors and watched the co-defendant's interview.
The judge credited the detective's testimony that defendant knocked
around midnight and indicated he wanted to talk about the incident. During the
next hour, defendant admitted his involvement in the murder. We agree with
the judge's assessment that "[i]t is apparent that sitting in the interview room
A-2207-18T4
11
alone for more than three hours caused [defendant] to reflect and decide to make
the admissions, which are video-recorded, commencing at 12:03 [a.m.]."
Thus, despite the argument that the detectives' methods elicited a false
confession from the youthful defendant, he did not implicate himself during the
initial questioning from 2:08 p.m. until 4:52 p.m. Defendant initiated the second
part of the interview and admitted to the murder. We note at the commencement
of the second part of the interview, the detective and defendant discussed the
Miranda warnings the detective read earlier:
[DETECTIVE]: Alright, [defendant], we're going back
on the record. Okay, uh, earlier today when I spoke
with you, I read you your Miranda [r]ights, okay. You
understand that your . . . Miranda [r]ights are still in
effect and that you can . . . at any time stop talking to
us, okay. And initiate your right to stop talking. You
know that your Miranda [r]ights are still in effect,
correct?
[DEFENDANT]: Yeah.
[DETECTIVE]: Okay, and you know you can stop
talking to us at any time or – and request an attorney at
any time. You understand that, right?
[DEFENDANT]: Correct.
Defendant does not argue the detective was required to re-administer full
Miranda warnings. See State v. Milledge, 386 N.J. Super. 233, 245 (App. Div.
2006) (holding a "re-acknowledgement without a complete re-read of
A-2207-18T4
12
defendant's Miranda rights" sufficed where defendant did not assert the right to
remain silent).
We do not discern any merit to defendant's argument that he was not tested
for drugs before the interview despite advising the detectives he was shot on
March 23 and still had a stitch that had to be removed; defendant was never
asked if he was taking any controlled dangerous substances. Despite defendant's
claim he was taking Percocet for pain relief, defendant's engagement with the
detectives does not reveal any level of intoxication or influence from any
substance. Defendant was able to fully and coherently answer each question
posed to him. The detective testified that, based on his twenty-one years in law
enforcement, defendant’s appearance, speech, eyes and demeanor suggested that
he was not under the influence of any drugs during the questioning. Even if
defendant was under the influence at the time of the questioning, "[a] confession
made by a person while under the influence of drugs is not per se involuntary."
State v. Wade, 40 N.J. 27, 35 (1963). As we held in State v. Warmbrun, 277
N.J. Super. 51, 64 (App. Div. 1994), where the defendant was "capable of
communicating[,] . . . was responsive in answering questions[,] and could
answer correctly questions such as his name, age, etc.[,]" his statement was
A-2207-18T4
13
properly admitted. Moreover, defendant twice said he understood his Miranda
rights.
The question of voluntariness requires "the trial court [to] review[] 'the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the custodial interrogation,'" State v.
Tillery, 238 N.J. 293, 316 (2019) (quoting State v. A.M., 237 N.J. 384, 398
(2019)), and decide whether defendant’s decision to waive his rights resulted
from an impermissibly overborne will, State v. Burris, 145 N.J. 509, 536 (1996).
Our Supreme Court has held:
Every case must turn on its particular facts. In
determining the issue of voluntariness . . . a court
should assess the . . . characteristics of the suspect and
the details of the interrogation. Some of the
relevant factors include the suspect's age, education
and intelligence, advice as to constitutional rights,
length of detention, whether the questioning was
repeated and prolonged in nature and whether physical
punishment or mental exhaustion was involved. A
suspect's previous encounters with the law has been
mentioned as an additional relevant factor.
[State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392, 402 (1978) (citation
omitted).]
The motion judge found "no evidence . . . that [defendant] was 'threatened,
tricked or cajoled' into a waiver of his rights or that his will was overborne."
The judge concluded the detective's "technique, attempting to gain [defendant's]
trust and urging him to cooperate with law enforcement, was well within
A-2207-18T4
14
acceptable bounds of interrogation and was not 'so manipulative or coercive [to
deprive defendant] of his ability to make an unconstrained, autonomous decision
to confess . . . .'" (Second alteration in original) (citations omitted). The judge
found the detective's "tone of voice and frustration did not rise to the level of
physical or psychological threats to render the confession involuntary." The
judge also determined the detective's persistence that defendant was untruthful
was not overbearing. See State v. Cabrera, 387 N.J. Super. 81, 103 (App. Div.
2006).
We see no reason to disagree with the judge's supported conclusions.
Defendant was a twenty-year-old man at the time of the interrogation with an
eleventh-grade education. He had a substantial criminal history and was familiar
with the criminal justice system: as a juvenile he was charged with robbery,
N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(3), possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-4(a), and conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A.
2C:15-1(a)(3); as an adult, he was charged with possession of a controlled
dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a), possession of a controlled
dangerous substance with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A 2C:35-5(a)(1), possession
of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute on or near school
A-2207-18T4
15
property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-
5(b), and numerous municipal offenses.
At the outset of the interrogation, defendant was read his rights and
indicated that he understood them, that "[n]o promises or threats have been
made" to him, and that he should not feel pressured to continue the interrogation
if he did not want to. He repeated that he understood those rights at the
beginning of the second part of the interview.
Defendant did not endure an unreasonably lengthy period of questioning,
mental or physical exhaustion, or threats of violence. As the motion judge
pointed out, defendant "was questioned for less than four hours, notwithstanding
being in custody for a twelve[-]hour period." The interview occurred during the
middle of the day: it "began at 2:08[p.m.] and continued until 4:52[p.m.]" There
were breaks in the questioning. Defendant was fed dinner at a reasonable hour
and was not forced to eat alone. Nothing in the record suggests he was denied
a break or a request for food or water; or otherwise complained that he was too
tired to continue the questioning.
Inasmuch as the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, See State
v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368, 383 (2014); State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383, 400-01
A-2207-18T4
16
(2009), and defendant's statement was voluntary and not the product of an
overborne will, State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 654 (1993), defendant's
suppression motion was properly denied. We discern no error, much less plain
error, in the motion judge's decision. R. 2:10-2; Macon, 57 N.J. at 337-38.
To the extent not addressed, defendant's remaining arguments are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-2207-18T4
17