STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARSHA G. BERNARD STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREW DAVIS (14-01-0003, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-3811-15T2
    A-4893-15T1
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    MARSHA G. BERNARD, a/k/a
    MARSHA GAY BERNARD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _____________________________
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    ANDREW DAVIS, a/k/a FLIPPA
    MAFIA, FLIPPA MOGGELA,
    DJ, and JOHN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _____________________________
    Submitted February 6, 2019 (A-3811-15) and Argued
    telephonically February 8, 2019 (A-4893-15) –
    Decided May 1, 2020
    Before Judges Ostrer, Currier and Mayer.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 14-01-0003.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant Marsha G. Bernard (Richard Sparaco,
    Designated Counsel, on the brief).
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent in A-3811-15 (Sarah Lichter, Deputy
    Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
    Robin Kay Lord argued the cause for appellant Andrew
    Davis.
    Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
    cause for respondent in A-4893-15 (Gurbir S. Grewal,
    Attorney General, attorney; Sarah Lichter, of counsel
    and on the brief).
    The opinion of the court was delivered by
    OSTRER, J.A.D.
    In these back-to-back appeals, consolidated for purposes of this opinion,
    defendants Andrew Davis and Marsha Bernard challenge their convictions of
    first-degree conspiracy to distribute cocaine and financially facilitate criminal
    activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25, and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5; first-degree
    distribution of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5; and lesser-included second-degree
    financial facilitation of criminal activity (money laundering), N.J.S.A. 2C:21-
    A-3811-15T2
    2
    25. The jury could not reach a verdict on Davis's first-degree charge of being a
    leader of a narcotics trafficking network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3; and Davis appeals
    from the court's order, granting the State's motion to retry him. Defendants also
    challenge their sentences – an aggregate twenty-one years, with six years of
    parole ineligibility for Bernard, and an aggregate twenty-five years, with twelve
    years of parole ineligibility for Davis.
    We affirm.
    I.
    The State contended that Davis and Bernard, with the help of others,
    imported eighteen kilos of cocaine into New Jersey and then distributed the
    drugs here. The State alleged Davis led the operation and directed Bernard and
    other co-conspirators, including Davis's brother Kemar, 1 to mail the cocaine
    from California, receive the packages in New Jersey, deliver cocaine to dealers,
    and collect money.     The case against Davis and Bernard consisted of the
    testimony of former associates, who stated they distributed drugs for Davis;
    police officers who described their surveillance of drug transactions involving
    or connected to defendants, and the seizure of drugs and cash; and extensive
    1
    To avoid confusion, we will refer to Kemar by his first name, and Andrew
    Davis by his last name; and we mean no disrespect in doing so.
    A-3811-15T2
    3
    recorded conversations, in which Davis and Bernard discussed their drug
    distribution activities. In most of the calls, the participants spoke Jamaican
    Patois, an English-based dialect that required translation or interpretation to be
    understood by English speakers unfamiliar with its pronunciation, sentence
    structure, and vocabulary.
    The State presented evidence regarding several separate transactions
    involving one or both defendants. In August 2012, in the course of intercepting
    phone calls of another suspected drug distributor, George Jones, Millville Police
    learned that Jones had arranged to purchase a large amount of cocaine from his
    "Jamaican supplier." Police also learned that an associate, Gregory Spence, was
    directed to pick up the cocaine and deliver it to Jones at a Holiday Inn.
    Testifying for the State, Spence said that on the appointed date, he picked
    up Kemar at the airport, and went to Davis's apartment, where four boxes of
    cocaine were received. Davis told him to take "ten" to "G," meaning ten
    kilograms to George Jones. When Spence returned to meet Jones at the hotel,
    police arrested both of them and recovered ten kilograms of cocaine from
    Spence's car and over $400,000 from Jones's hotel room. Spence testified he
    had transported cocaine and conducted transactions on Davis's behalf since
    2011; and he gave drug sale proceeds to Bernard when Davis was unavailable.
    A-3811-15T2
    4
    In the months following the hotel seizure, based on information obtained from
    a confidential informant, State Police Detective Erik Hoffman obtained warrants
    to retrieve and record communications of Davis's and Kemar's cellphones.
    In early January 2013, an officer assigned to interdict drugs at Los
    Angeles International Airport (LAX) conversed with Kemar as he walked
    through the terminal.    As we discuss in greater detail in connection with
    defendants' suppression motion, police ultimately uncovered over $140,000 in
    cash hidden in Kemar's suitcase. In the months that followed, investigators
    obtained additional warrants to intercept calls to and from Kemar's and Bernard's
    cellphone.
    In February 2013, Davis called Kemar to ask about a package that was
    supposed to arrive at a Vineland address from California. Kemar called the post
    office, falsely identified himself as Peter Williams, the sender, and was told that
    the package was en route. Police intercepted the package and discovered several
    kilos of cocaine hidden inside CD cases covered in wrapping paper. When
    Kemar again called the post office, the postal employee, as directed by police,
    told him the package could not be delivered due to an insufficient address.
    Kemar reported this to Davis, who told him to obtain a fake driver's license in
    the name of Peter Williams, so he could retrieve the package as its sender. After
    A-3811-15T2
    5
    repeated calls, a postal employee eventually told Kemar the package was in a
    "dead mail recovery center" in Atlanta. Kemar told Davis that he "don't like
    how that sound[ed]." When informed of that, Davis instructed him to abandon
    the package and change his phone number.
    The State also presented evidence of multiple phone calls in February and
    March 2013 involving Kemar, Bernard, and Davis, pertaining to a drug buyer's
    complaint that a kilo of cocaine was "handicapped" and "bent." The calls
    reflected defendants' involvement in the distribution of drugs, particularly to the
    buyer.
    Another Davis cohort, Shellyann Brown, testified that, beginning in April
    2012, she received or picked up packages for Davis and gave them to Bernard,
    who paid her for her service. In March 2013, Kemar talked to Brown about
    another package she was supposed to receive in Hamilton from California.
    Police intercepted the package, found cocaine inside, and asked the post office
    to update the tracking information to "status not updated." Later, Brown was
    informed the package leaked and was deemed hazardous.              In subsequent
    conversations, Kemar and Davis disbelieved the report and suspected someone
    had stolen the package. Brown thereafter gave Kemar a different address to use.
    After a package was sent there, police watched Brown give it to Bernard.
    A-3811-15T2
    6
    Davis called Bernard and told her to open the package and take "one" to
    Angel Rivera and "two" to James McBride. Bernard asked Sidonie McLeod to
    make the delivery to McBride at a Kmart in Moorestown. Police watched
    McLeod do so, but did not intercede. Bernard told Davis that McBride paid
    "forty-nine" for the "two" McLeod gave him.
    Also in March 2013, Bernard contacted Rivera and asked him to meet in
    the parking lot of the Red Lobster restaurant near the Cherry Hill Mall. Bernard
    brought a shopping bag from one of the mall's stores to the parking lot and
    handed it to Rivera, who put it in his car and entered the restaurant. Police
    arrested him in the restaurant, and recovered the shopping bag. They found
    cocaine inside, covered in birthday wrapping paper, and a receipt in Bernard's
    name from the store that produced the shopping bag.
    Later that month, Kemar and Davis talked about the expected delivery of
    another package from California to a Princeton address Brown provided. Police
    watched the delivery. After she received it, Brown called Bernard, who picked
    it up. Bernard then called McBride to say she would deliver it to him around
    7:00 that night. During that call, McBride said that Davis told him to "come
    see" Bernard.
    A-3811-15T2
    7
    Bernard gave the package to McLeod to take to McBride. Police followed
    McLeod, watched her hand the box to McBride, and then arrested the two. The
    package contained cocaine and bore the delivery address Brown gave Kemar.
    Bernard was arrested the same day, as were Brown and Kemar, who was in
    California at the time. Davis was later arrested in California.
    Defendants were indicted along with Kemar, Brown, and several others,
    but defendants were tried together. As we noted, the jury found defendants
    guilty of conspiracy, cocaine distribution, and money laundering, but was hung
    on the leader charge against Davis. We will review the details of the court's
    sentence when we discuss defendants' excessive-sentence arguments.
    Davis presents the following points for our consideration:
    POINT ONE
    THE COURT'S JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE
    STATE'S TRANSLATIONS OF PHONE CALLS
    CONDUCTED IN JAMAICAN PATOIS WERE
    CORRECT   IMPROPERLY     INVADED     THE
    PROVINCE OF THE JURY, THEREBY DEPRIVING
    DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
    POINT TWO
    THE MONEY LAUNDERING CONVICTION MUST
    BE VACATED BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO
    PROVE THAT DEFENDANT COMMITTED AN
    ACT OF MONEY LAUNDERING SEPARATE FROM
    A-3811-15T2
    8
    THE DRUG SALES BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS
    OBTAINED.
    POINT THREE
    THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
    TO DISMISS COUNT TWO, FIRST-DEGREE
    LEADER OF A NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING
    NETWORK, AND GRANTING THE STATE'S
    MOTION FOR RETRIAL MUST BE REVERSED
    BECAUSE RETRIAL ON THAT COUNT IS
    PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
    CLAUSE OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION.
    POINT FOUR
    THE COURT'S FAILURE TO DECLARE A
    MISTRIAL OR AT A MINIMUM TO VOIR DIRE
    THE JURY AFTER A JUROR INFORMED THE
    COURT THAT SHE COULD NO LONGER
    DELIBERATE "WITH A CLEAR HEAD," DENIED
    THE DEFENDANT HIS STATE AND FEDERAL
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF
    LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL.
    POINT FIVE
    THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DENIAL OF
    DEFENDANT'S    MOTION   TO     SUPPRESS
    ELECTRONIC    EVIDENCE  BECAUSE     THE
    CAPTURE OF DEFENDANT'S CELL PHONE
    CONVERSATIONS FROM DECEMBER 13, 2012
    ONWARD UNLAWFULLY UTILIZED THE CELL
    PHONE TOWER FACILITY OF A FOREIGN
    NATION (JAMAICA).
    A-3811-15T2
    9
    POINT SIX
    THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT BASIS
    TO DETAIN KEMAR DAVIS, AND ALL EVIDENCE
    RESULTING    FROM   THE   WARRANTLESS
    SEARCH OF HIS LUGGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
    SUPPRESSED.
    POINT SEVEN
    A   QUALITATIVE    WEIGHING    OF THE
    AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
    DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF AN
    AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF 25 YEARS WITH 12
    YEARS OF PAROLE INELIGIBILITY.
    Bernard presents the following points for our consideration:
    POINT I – THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM KEMAR
    DAVIS AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL
    AIRPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
    POINT II – THE COURT ERRED IN NOT
    GRANTING   DEFENDANT'S MOTION    TO
    DISCLOSE IDENTITY OF   CONFIDENTIAL
    INFORMANT.
    POINT III – THE TRIAL COURT INVADED THE
    PROVINCE OF THE JURY AS FACT-FINDERS IN
    ITS JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE COURT HAS
    ALREADY FOUND THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
    THE INTERCEPTED PHONE CALLS WERE A
    CORRECT TRANSLATION.
    POINT IV – THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
    GRANTED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A
    MISTRIAL DUE TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO
    PROVIDE DISCOVERY OF STATEMENTS MADE
    A-3811-15T2
    10
    BY DEFENDANT THAT LATER FORMED THE
    BASIS FOR THE OPINION THAT THE
    DEFENDANT'S VOICE WAS ON THE RECORDED
    CONVERSATIONS.
    POINT V – DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE OF
    TWENTY-ONE YEARS WITH SIX YEARS PAROLE
    INELIGIBILITY WAS EXCESSIVE BECAUSE
    THESE CONSTITUTED HER FIRST ARREST AND
    CONVICTIONS.
    We first address the jury instruction and suppression issues, which both
    defendants raise.
    II.
    Defendants argue the court usurped the jury's fact-finding role, and denied
    defendants a fair trial, by instructing the jury that the transcript translating the
    wire-tapped conversations presented at trial were "correct."         We disagree.
    Defendants invited the process by which the court found, after hearing from its
    own expert, what was the correct transcription of the taped conversations. And,
    even if defendants did not invite the court's finding, we are unconvinced the
    judge's instruction on the transcript's correctness denied defendants a fair trial.
    See R. 2:10-2. That is so for two reasons. First, the judge also instructed the
    jury that it should decide whether the transcripts were correct.           Second,
    defendants identified no alleged errors in the transcript that caused them
    prejudice.
    A-3811-15T2
    11
    A.
    As already noted, the State significantly relied on recorded conversations
    involving defendants and Kemar speaking Patois. The dialect is English-based,
    but employs special idioms and usages that may not be understood by non-
    speakers. There is no accepted Patois-to-English dictionary. Words in Patois
    develop and change over time (as do most languages).
    The State proposed before trial to allow the jury to use the transcripts,
    prepared by a State Police Patois expert, as aids when listening to the recorded
    conversations. But, unlike in a case involving purely English recordings, the
    aid was not intended merely to assure that the jury did not miss a word; it was
    intended to assure that the jury understood the meaning of the words used.
    However, the transcript did not involve a word-for-word translation. Rather, it
    apparently constituted an interpretation as well.2
    2
    We cannot ascertain the extent to which interpretation exceeded word-for-
    word translation, in part because the record does not include the actual
    recordings, or a word-for-word transcription of them. Furthermore, defendants
    have not identified any Patois words derived from a non-English language,
    which required an intermediate translation into English, before a final
    translation as to its meaning. In that respect, the translation was unlike a Spanish
    recording that first had to be translated into English words, some of which
    themselves had to be translated because they were drug code or slang. See
    United States v. Gonzalez, 
    365 F.3d 656
    , 660-61 (8th Cir. 2004).
    A-3811-15T2
    12
    Davis's counsel stated that he "requested . . . that the Court appoint an
    interpreter for purposes of the Driver hearing."3 Arguably, Davis's counsel
    expressly agreed to be bound by the court-appointed expert's interpretation.
    During the pre-hearing colloquy, Davis's counsel said that once the State and
    defense were heard on a particular disputed portion of the interpretation, the
    "court interpreter . . . would be the final say."
    Once appointed, the expert reviewed each State-prepared transcript that
    the State proposed to present at trial. After hearing the original wire-tapped
    conversation or reviewing the captured text message, the expert offered her
    view. In many cases, the expert approved of the State's translation; in some
    cases, the interpreter suggested minor modifications after hearing from counsel.
    None of the changes appeared to alter drastically the recorded conversation's
    overall meaning, and some translations seemed apparent from the context. For
    example, the expert explained that "drop" meant to "deliver" something; "shoot"
    3
    State v. Driver, 
    38 N.J. 255
    (1962). A court at a Driver hearing typically
    determines the admissibility of a sound recording – as distinct from its
    translation – in light of such factors as whether "(1) the device was capable of
    taking the conversation or statement, (2) its operator was competent, (3) the
    recording is authentic and correct, (4) no changes, additions or deletions have
    been made, and (5) in instances of alleged confessions, that the statements were
    elicited voluntarily and without any inducement."
    Id. at 287.
    See also State v.
    Nantambu, 
    221 N.J. 390
    , 395 (2015) (stating "reliability is the decisive factor in
    determining the admissibility of a recording").
    A-3811-15T2
    13
    meant "send"; "my mind just run on you" meant "I was thinking about you";
    "milk out" meant "used up"; "ray ray" meant "whatever, whatever"; "buff up"
    meant "break" or "destroy"; and to "reach" meant to arrive at a locati on. The
    trial court made clear that defendants retained the right to present their own
    expert to testify at trial about disputed sections of the transcript. However,
    defendants did not do so.
    Before trial, the judge stated that he intended to instruct the jury that a
    court-appointed, Jamaican Patois interpreter reviewed and in some cases revised
    the transcripts, and "[f]ollowing this court-supervised evaluation, those
    transcripts have been determined to be accurate translations of the recordings."
    Both defense counsel objected on the grounds that, by sharing its finding, the
    court infringed on defendants' right of confrontation. The court rejected Davis's
    counsel's request that the court use the charge on oral statements, and rejected
    Bernard's counsel's request that the court substitute "permissible" for "accurate."
    Without waiving his objections, Davis's counsel suggested the court substitute
    "correct" for "accurate," which the court did. The judge later stated he would
    instruct the jury that "[w]hat the words mean [was] something that they [would]
    have to consider."
    A-3811-15T2
    14
    At trial, before the State began to play selected calls for the jury, the court
    instructed the jury:
    Members of the jury, a copy of the tape has been
    marked into evidence. That is the evidence that you
    should consider.
    The State's evidence in th[i]s case includes numerous
    phone calls and text messages intercepted through
    various wiretaps, many of which are in Jamaican Patois,
    a slang or jargon that has developed in that country.
    Using investigators fluent in Patois, the State has
    prepared transcripts of these recordings and messages.
    Prior to trial at a hearing, those transcripts were
    reviewed and, in some instances, revised by a Court-
    appointed interpreter who is fluent in Patois.
    Following this Court's supervised evaluation, the
    transcripts have been determined to be a correct
    translation of the recordings.
    After a sidebar conversation, the court added:
    Again, you're being provided with what we refer to as
    "listening aids" that you're – they're going to play tapes,
    which substantially will be in Patois.
    These are for your guidance to listen to the tapes. The
    tapes control what you listen to.
    At another side bar, defense counsel objected to Hoffman stating what he found
    important in certain recorded statements. The court then added the instruction:
    A-3811-15T2
    15
    At the end of the day, the jury has to make a
    determination of all of the facts. You are the finder of
    facts, and you have to analyze the tapes that will be
    played to you. And, that is ultimately your province.
    And, that's the important thing for you to consider as
    we go forward.
    The court overruled defendants' continuing objection, stating they could call
    their own expert to challenge the transcripts' accuracy.
    The transcripts were not formally entered into evidence and were not
    permitted into the jury room. At trial, the State's Patois expert testified about
    the translations and defendants cross-examined him as to their accuracy. He
    agreed that Patois is an evolving dialect and that the meaning and interpretation
    of words may vary depending on several factors. He also conceded that he left
    Jamaica at age nine and had only visited there infrequently in the twenty -six
    years since. He testified that his translations of the intercepted calls were
    "interpretations of what was being said" because a word-for-word translation
    into English would be "impossible." He agreed there are multiple ways of saying
    the same thing in Patois and that some Patois words have several meanings. He
    said he tried to put the words used by the speakers in the calls into context.
    Defense counsel also cross-examined other witnesses about the nature of
    Patois as a variable, fluid dialect. For example, Spence testified that there were
    no Patois dictionaries and that the dialect was not taught in Jamaican schools.
    A-3811-15T2
    16
    State Police Detective Hoffman said that he relied on the State Police expert's
    interpretations, and that it was "not for [him]" to consider whether the
    differences in sentence structures between Patois and English were significant.
    Counsel and the judge returned to the issue of the court's instruction
    multiple times during trial, with defense counsel objecting to the court stating
    its finding regarding the translations. The judge rejected the suggestion to
    substitute "fair" for "correct" (but, as noted below, he did use that word in one
    instance). He stated he would add a sentence to instruct the jury that it was the
    final arbiter of the recordings' meaning.
    In summation, Davis's counsel stated that the jurors should focus on the
    words spoken on the tapes, because the translated transcripts were "not
    evidence." She emphasized that Patois is a highly variable "slang language"
    without dictionaries, and urged jurors to make their own determination as to the
    content of the phone calls because the interpretations and translations were not
    necessarily "what really was said."
    In its final instructions, the court repeated its mid-trial instruction, stating
    both that the court found the transcript "correct," but the jury was the final
    arbiter of the facts:
    The State's evidence in this case included numerous
    phone calls and text messages through various wiretaps,
    A-3811-15T2
    17
    many of which are in Jamaican Patois, a slang or jargon
    that has developed in that country.
    Using investigators fluent in Patois, the State has
    prepared transcripts of these recordings and messages.
    Prior to trial, at a hearing, these transcripts were
    reviewed and, in some instances, revised by a Court-
    appointed interpreter who is fluent in Patois.
    Following this Court's supervised evaluation, the
    transcripts have been determined to be a correct
    translation of the recordings.
    However, as finders-of-fact, it is up to you, and you
    alone, as the sole and exclusive judges of the facts in
    evidence, to determine what was said and by whom, as
    well as the meaning of the words and the intent of the
    speakers.
    Later, the court instructed the jury how to properly evaluate defendants'
    alleged oral statements, and "consider[] whether or not the statements . . . is [sic]
    as the State alleges." In so doing, the court characterized the transcripts as "fair"
    as opposed to "accurate." The judge stated, "I specifically instruct you that it is
    the tapes, themselves, that are the evidence and not the transcripts, which, after
    pre-trial consideration, have been determined to be a fair aide [sic] in your
    deliberation[s]."
    A-3811-15T2
    18
    B.
    Well-settled principles govern a claimed error in a jury instruction.
    "[A]dequate and understandable jury instructions" are essential to a fair trial.
    State v. Afanador, 
    151 N.J. 41
    , 54 (1997).          For that reason, "[e]rroneous
    instructions are poor candidates for rehabilitation as harmless, and are ordinarily
    presumed to be reversible error."
    Ibid. Nonetheless, in order
    to reverse where
    a defendant has objected to a charge, "there must 'be some degree of possibility
    that [the error] led to an unjust result. The possibility must be real, one sufficient
    to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise
    might not have reached.'" State v. Baum, 
    224 N.J. 147
    , 159 (2016) (quoting
    State v. Lazo, 
    209 N.J. 9
    , 26 (2012)).        "[A]ny alleged error also must be
    evaluated in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Burns,
    
    192 N.J. 312
    , 341 (2007) (quoting State v. Chapland, 
    187 N.J. 275
    , 289 (2006)).
    We also review a jury instruction as whole, State v. Delibero, 
    149 N.J. 90
    ,
    107 (1997), particularly if the judge erred in one part of the charge, but correctly
    instructed the jury elsewhere, State v. McKinney, 
    223 N.J. 475
    , 496 (2015). A
    court may find an error harmless based on "'the isolated nature of the
    transgression and the fact that a correct definition of the law on the same charge
    is found elsewhere in the court's instructions.'" 
    Baum, 224 N.J. at 160
    (quoting
    A-3811-15T2
    19
    State v. Jackmon, 
    305 N.J. Super. 274
    , 299 (App. Div. 1997)); see also State v.
    Medina, 
    147 N.J. 43
    , 55 (1996) (declining to reverse based on judge's erroneous
    explanation of State's burden of proof where "[i]mmediately after delivering the
    offending clause, the court provided a more accurate explanation of the State's
    burden").    The court may also determine that reversal is unwarranted if
    instructions are "not so much incorrect as they were capable of being improved."
    
    Delibero, 149 N.J. at 106
    . Finally, a court may disregard a flaw in the judge's
    instruction if the defendant invited or encouraged it. See State v. A.R., 
    213 N.J. 542
    , 561-62 (2013) (stating that, absent a fundamental injustice, an appellate
    court may not reverse based on trial court errors that defense counsel induced or
    encouraged, or to which counsel consented); State v. Ramseur, 
    106 N.J. 123
    ,
    282 (1987) (applying the invited error doctrine to the defendant's request for
    specific jury instructions).
    As a procedural matter, it was appropriate for the court to conduct a
    hearing to determine the accuracy of the transcripts. Our courts have recognized
    that "a transcript may be used as an aid for understanding a tape recording."
    State v. DeBellis, 
    174 N.J. Super. 195
    , 199 (App. Div. 1980).          However,
    characterizing a transcript as a mere aid makes sense only when the jury can on
    its own discern the recording's meaning. "[A] jury cannot very well follow the
    A-3811-15T2
    20
    tapes where they conflict with translations if the jury does not understand the
    language of tapes. In such circumstances, it may make more sense to treat
    translations of transcripts of non-English-language conversations, as well as the
    tapes, as 'evidence.'" In re Audibility of Certain Recorded Conversations, 
    691 F. Supp. 588
    , 592 (D. Conn. 1988); see also United States v. Fuentes-Montijo,
    
    68 F.3d 352
    , 355 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[W]hen faced with a taped conversation in a
    language other than English and a disputed English translation transcript, the
    usual admonition that the tape is the evidence and the transcript only a guide is
    . . . nonsensical[.]").4
    One court has held that using a transcript is "analogous to the use of expert
    testimony as a device aiding a jury in understanding other types of real
    evidence." United States v. Onori, 
    535 F.2d 938
    , 947 (5th Cir. 1976); see also
    United States v. Cruz, 
    765 F.2d 1020
    , 1023 (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining that a
    jury must rely on a transcript as substantive evidence where it cannot understand
    the foreign language recording). In this respect, the translation of a foreign
    language recording is akin to an expert interpretation of drug code and other
    4
    The court also stated that describing the transcript as a mere aid "has the
    potential for harm," where at least one juror speaks the foreign language in a
    recording, and could translate the recording differently from the experts, and
    may also serve as a jury-room expert.
    Id. at 355.
    Notably, in this case, jury
    selection assured that no Jamaican Patois speaker was empaneled.
    A-3811-15T2
    21
    expressions a jury may not understand. See State v. Hyman, 
    451 N.J. Super. 429
    , 446 (App. Div. 2017) (discussing need for opinion testimony to illuminate
    "drug slang or code words [that] remain beyond the average juror's
    understanding").    The court's preliminary hearing assured that the transcript
    presented to the jury met a reasonable standard of accuracy. As the First Circuit
    Court of Appeals has observed, "Where inaccuracies in the transcript combine
    with possible bias in the transcription process, a transcript may be excluded from
    evidence." United States v. Font-Ramirez, 
    944 F.2d 42
    , 48 (1st Cir. 1991).
    Many federal appellate courts have endorsed a procedure by which the
    trial judge encourages the parties to stipulate to a single transcription; and if that
    is not possible, then the prosecution should be permitted to offer its qualified
    expert's opinion about the recording's meaning, followed by the defendant's
    expert's opposing view. See e.g., United States v. Rengifo, 
    789 F.2d 975
    , 983
    (1st Cir. 1986) (stating the district court should "try to obtain a stipulated
    transcript from the parties" and "[f]ailing such stipulation, each party should be
    allowed to introduce its own transcript of the recording provided that it is
    properly authenticated"); United States v. Llinas, 
    603 F.2d 506
    , 509 (5th Cir.
    1979) (stating that if the court cannot secure the parties' stipulation to a common
    transcript, "then each side should produce its own version of a transcript or its
    A-3811-15T2
    22
    own version of the disputed portions" and may introduce evidence supporting
    its version or challenging the opponent's (quoting United States v. Wilson, 
    578 F.2d 67
    , 70 (5th Cir. 1978))); see also 
    Gonzalez, 365 F.3d at 660
    ; United States
    v. Zambrana, 
    841 F.2d 1320
    , 1336 (7th Cir. 1988); 
    Cruz, 765 F.2d at 1023
    (following Llinas).
    The court here opted instead to appoint its own expert, to ascertain
    whether the transcript was accurate and presentable to the jury. We find no error
    in doing so, where defense counsel expressly requested that procedure, and the
    State consented.
    Federal cases hold that a defendant may not complain about the court's
    decision to admit a transcript, or to permit a jury to consider it, if the defendant
    has not presented evidence to challenge the government's evidence supporting
    its version. See United States v. Franco, 
    136 F.3d 622
    , 626 (9th Cir. 1998)
    (holding that the district court correctly concluded that "defendants had not
    placed the accuracy of the transcripts in issue" where defendants "submitted no
    competing translations"); 
    Zambrana, 841 F.2d at 1335
    (stating defendant may
    not complain about use of government's transcript "[b]ecause defendants had
    ample opportunity to either challenge specific portions of the government's
    transcript or to prepare an alternate version"); 
    Cruz, 765 F.2d at 1023
    (stating
    A-3811-15T2
    23
    that defendant "'cannot complain on appeal that the jury's fact-finding function
    was usurped when he failed to present evidence which would have aided the
    jurors in fulfilling [the] function'" of assessing the transcript's accuracy (quoting
    
    Llinas, 603 F.3d at 510
    )).
    However, at issue in cases like Franco, Zambrana, and Cruz was the
    threshold admissibility of the transcripts. The court rejected defense arguments
    that the prosecution's transcripts should not have been presented to the jury at
    all because of alleged inaccuracies. 
    Franco, 136 F.3d at 628
    ; 
    Zambrana, 841 F.2d at 1335
    ; 
    Cruz, 765 F.2d at 1023
    ; see also 
    Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d at 48
    (holding the court appropriately admitted a transcript where the defendant "did
    not offer an alternative transcript and did not point out any specific inaccuracies
    in the government's transcript").
    Even if a defendant does not present an alternative translation, he or she
    may still challenge the accuracy of the transcript the government presents to the
    jury. To require a defendant to present an expert or an alternative translation,
    as a pre-condition to contesting the accuracy of the government's translation,
    would improperly impose upon the defendant a burden to produce evidence.
    However, a defendant "has no burden to come forward with one scintilla of
    A-3811-15T2
    24
    evidence." State v. Loftin, 
    146 N.J. 295
    , 389 (1996) (approving jury instruction
    that defendant has no burden to present evidence).
    Multiple federal circuit courts of appeal have held that the interpretation
    of a foreign-language recording is a fact issue for the jury. See 
    Gonzalez, 365 F.3d at 661
    ; 
    Zambrana, 841 F.2d at 1337
    (stating "it is more properly the
    function of the finder-of-fact to weigh the evidence presented by the parties as
    to the accuracy of the proffered translation and to determine the reliability of
    the translation on the basis of that evidence"); see also 
    Franco, 136 F.3d at 628
    ;
    
    Rengifo, 789 F.2d at 983
    .
    Where a transcript's accuracy is disputed, federal courts have held that the
    trial judge should instruct the jury that it is obliged to resolve the factual dispute.
    See 
    Gonzalez, 365 F.3d at 661
    -62 (reviewing Eighth and Seventh Circuit model
    criminal jury charges, which direct the jury to determine the accuracy of the
    transcript); 
    Franco, 136 F.3d at 626
    (affirming conviction where trial court
    instructed that the transcripts were "evidence subject to objections" and
    "transcripts or portions of the transcripts may have to be evaluated by you for
    accuracy, and you may accept, reject, or partially accept and reject the
    transcript's accuracy"); 
    Rengifo, 789 F.2d at 983
    (stating that "[w]hen the jury
    receives two transcripts of the same recording, it should . . . be instructed
    A-3811-15T2
    25
    that there is a difference of opinion as to the accuracy of the transcripts and that
    it is up to them to decide which, if any, version to accept").
    The judge in this case duly recognized that the interpretation of the
    recorded wire-tapped conversations was a fact issue; and that it was the jury's
    role, ultimately, to resolve that issue. The court appropriately instructed the jury
    that "as finders-of-fact, it is up to you, and you alone, as the sole and exclusive
    judges of the facts in evidence, to determine what was said and by whom, as
    well as the meaning of the words and the intent of the speakers."
    The court's misstep was to share with the jury the court's own preliminary
    finding. Doing so risked influencing the jury in making its own finding. See
    State v. Ross, 
    229 N.J. 389
    , 416 (2017) (Timpone, J., dissenting) (noting the
    potential harm "[w]hen a judge drifts from being a pillar of neutrality"). Just as
    a judge should not disclose its preliminary finding as to the admissibility o f a
    defendant's statement as voluntary, see State v. Hampton, 
    61 N.J. 250
    , 272
    (1972), the judge here should not have told the jury that he found the transcript
    to be "correct" and "fair." 5
    5
    We recognize that in Fuentes-Montijo, the court rejected a defendant's
    challenge to a trial judge's instruction that directed the jury to accept an English
    transcript of Spanish recordings presented at 
    trial. 68 F.3d at 353
    . The trial
    judge stated, "You are not free to reject the accuracy of the interpretation of the
    A-3811-15T2
    26
    Nonetheless, we decline to reverse on this basis.           Davis's counsel
    evidently agreed to be bound by the court's expert. Davis may not argue now
    that the court improperly instructed the jury that the court found the expert's
    version correct and fair. However, even if Davis's counsel meant only to agree
    the State could use the court's expert's version at trial, without waiving the right
    to challenge it before the jury, the charge as a whole did not deny Davis or
    Bernard a fair trial.
    Although the judge's statement about his finding risked unduly
    influencing the jury, the statement was true. And the judge clearly instructed
    the jury that assessing the transcript's accuracy was ultimately a question for the
    jury. Taken as a whole, the instruction was inartful, but not incorrect.
    Most importantly, defendants failed to demonstrate that the judge's
    statement caused them prejudice. They failed to identify any inaccuracies in the
    transcript that the judge's statement may have dissuaded the jury from finding.
    tape recordings differently than the interpretation given by the certified court
    interpreter in the transcripts."
    Id. at 354.
    However, the case does not persuade
    us that a trial judge generally should declare a transcript accurate. The Court of
    Appeals noted that, absent the instruction, one or more bilingual juro rs could
    have shared that with the jury "unknown to the parties."
    Id. at 355.
    Secondly,
    the defendant arguably stipulated that the transcripts were true and accurate.
    Id. at 353.
    A-3811-15T2
    27
    Nor have they shown that any such inaccuracies were so significant that they
    could have affected the verdict in light of other evidence of guilt. Other courts
    have declined to disturb convictions where a defendant complained generally
    that the jury considered an inaccurate transcript, but failed to identify the
    inaccuracies or how they prejudiced the defendant. See 
    Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d at 355
    (finding no abuse of discretion in instructing the jury that the
    transcripts were accurate where defendants failed to identify inaccuracies that
    likely affected the verdict); United States v. Pena-Espinoza, 
    47 F.3d 356
    , 360
    (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming where court was "left with largely conclusory
    allegations of possible inaccuracy and no indication that the court's ruling
    [allowing readers of translations] likely affected the jury's verdict"); cf. 
    Franco, 136 F.3d at 628
    (holding there was no reversible error in allowing the transcripts
    in the jury room "when there is no cognizable dispute concerning the accuracy
    of the translation").
    In sum, we reject defendants' argument that the court's jury instruction
    denied them a fair trial, requiring reversal.
    A-3811-15T2
    28
    III.
    Defendants contend the court erred in declining to suppress over $140,000
    in currency seized from Kemar at LAX. 6 They assert an officer detained Kemar
    without reasonable suspicion.
    We reject these arguments. Applying our deferential standard of review,
    see State v. Elders, 
    192 N.J. 224
    , 243 (2007), we discern no basis to disturb the
    trial court's fact-findings reached after a testimonial hearing, including its
    finding that Kemar voluntarily spoke to the officer and consented to a search of
    his luggage. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 
    412 U.S. 218
    , 227 (1974) (stating
    that voluntariness of consent is a factual issue). As we review issues of law de
    novo, see State v. Gamble, 
    218 N.J. 412
    , 425 (2014), we independently conclude
    that Kemar was not unlawfully detained under the circumstances. See United
    States v. Mendenhall, 
    446 U.S. 544
    , 554-55 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.)
    (stating that characterization of incident as an investigatory stop is a legal
    question); United States v. Montilla, 
    928 F.2d 583
    , 588 (2d Cir. 1991) (stating
    "the Supreme Court's own practice suggests strongly that it views the seizure
    issue as a legal question"); United States v. Maragh, 
    894 F.2d 415
    , 417-18 (D.C.
    6
    In a supplemental brief, the State concedes that defendants had standing to file
    their motion.
    A-3811-15T2
    29
    Cir. 1990); State v. Cryan, 
    320 N.J. Super. 325
    , 328 (App. Div. 1999) (stating
    that a court conducts plenary review of court's application of the law to the facts
    in a suppression motion).
    The sole suppression hearing witness was Los Angeles Sheriff's Office
    detective Steve Anderson. He was assigned to an LAX task force to stop drug
    couriers. He explained that if he had no prior tip about an arriving courier, he
    would simply approach people and ask to speak to them. Sometimes, he did so
    randomly. Other times, he had a hunch the person was involved in criminal
    activity, as when he approached Kemar.         Kemar arrived on a flight from
    Philadelphia, a major drug destination; he repeatedly looked over his shoulder
    as he left the secure arrival area and entered baggage claim; he evidently made
    multiple calls on his cellphone; and he appeared nervous.
    Dressed in plain clothes with his weapon concealed, Anderson introduced
    himself as a narcotics officer, displayed his badge and identification, and asked
    Kemar if he would agree to answer "security questions." Anderson assured
    Kemar that he was "not in any trouble, was not under arrest," but he did not
    expressly tell him he could refuse to answer. Anderson testified that he would
    not have restrained Kemar if he had refused, or walked away; but, Kemar
    consented.
    A-3811-15T2
    30
    Kemar said he traveled to Los Angeles on a one-way ticket that his sister
    bought the previous week. He said he was there to visit friends and family, but
    he did not know who would pick him up, where he would stay, or when he would
    leave. Asked if he possessed a large amount of money, Kemar said he had a few
    hundred dollars. Anderson noticed several hundred-dollar bills in Kemar's
    wallet when he produced his driver's license, but did not think that was
    significant for a traveler.
    Anderson asked Kemar if he could check his bag, which Kemar had
    retrieved from the baggage carousel. Kemar agreed. A sergeant standing
    several feet away performed the search.       He discovered that Kemar's bag
    enclosed a second bag; and there was fresh glue and a bulge in the bag's interior
    walls. That indicated someone had opened and resealed them, perhaps to secrete
    cash or contraband. Anderson also noticed a bulge in Kemar's coat pocket the
    size of another wallet. Anderson again asked Kemar about money he was
    carrying. Kemar then said he had about $5000 in the pocket.
    At that point, Anderson testified he had more than a hunch that Kemar
    was involved in criminal activity. He asked Kemar if he would accompany him
    and the sergeant to their office just beyond the terminal building. Kemar agreed,
    A-3811-15T2
    31
    maintaining a calm demeanor. Anderson testified that if Kemar had not agreed,
    he would have seized the bag, although he did not tell Kemar that.
    With Kemar carrying his bag, and free of any restraints, they drove in a
    police sedan 200 yards to the office. Once there, an officer opened the bag's
    sealed walls and discovered over $140,000. Although Kemar said he packed his
    own bag, he denied owning the money or knowing it was there. He signed a
    form disclaiming ownership, and Anderson let him leave with his luggage, but
    not the cash inside.
    In denying the suppression motion, the court credited Anderson's factual
    recitation, and found that Kemar voluntarily consented to answer Anderson's
    questions, to permit the officer to search his bag, and to accompany Anderson
    to his office. Applying California law, citing State v. Mollica, 
    114 N.J. 329
    ,
    347 (1989), the court held that Anderson did not detain or seize Kemar when he
    approached him, asked him questions, and obtained permission to search his
    bag. Kemar consented voluntarily, and California law did not require Anderson
    to tell Kemar he could refuse.
    Both defendants contend that Anderson's interaction with Kemar
    constituted a detention – if not when he initially approached, then after he asked
    A-3811-15T2
    32
    if he possessed a lot of cash – and Anderson lacked a reasonable and articulable
    suspicion of a crime to justify that intrusion. We disagree.
    We first address the applicable law. Although both defendants rely on
    New Jersey case law, New Jersey law does not govern our analysis. That is
    because, "[w]ith regard to law-enforcement activities, a state constitution
    ordinarily governs only the conduct of the state's own agents or others ac ting
    under color of state law."
    Id. at 345.
    "[I]t does not offend [New Jersey's]
    constitutional principles . . . to allow the transfer of criminal evidence from the
    officers of another jurisdiction . . . when the evidence has been obtained lawfully
    by the former without any assistance by the latter."
    Id. at 352
    (allowing evidence
    seized by federal officials in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, but not
    the New Jersey Constitution). There was no proof at the hearing that Anderson
    was working with New Jersey law enforcement when he seized the cash.
    Rather, we look to federal jurisprudence, since the Supremacy Clause
    requires us to exclude evidence obtained in another state in violation of the
    Fourth Amendment. See State v. Evers, 
    175 N.J. 355
    , 378 (2003). We would
    not be obliged to enforce California law with the exclusionary rule even if it
    were more stringent than federal law, 
    Evers, 175 N.J. at 376-77
    (declining to
    exclude evidence obtained in violation of California statute), especially since
    A-3811-15T2
    33
    California's constitution bars its own courts from suppressing evidence seized
    contrary to California but not federal law. See Cal. Const., Art. I, § 28(d); In re
    Lance W., 
    694 P.2d 744
    , 752 (Cal. 1985) (stating California constitutional
    amendment eliminated exclusionary remedy "except to the extent . . . federally
    compelled"). Enforcing California law would not further the purposes of the
    exclusionary rule under New Jersey's constitution. See Mollica, 
    114 N.J. 352
    -
    53.
    Turning to the merits, the dispositive issue is whether, under federal
    constitutional law, the law enforcement officers illegally detained Kemar when
    he permitted the officers to search his luggage. We shall not disturb the court's
    fact-finding that Kemar voluntarily consented to the search. Voluntariness of
    consent is determined based on "the totality of all the circumstances."
    
    Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227
    . Under federal law, the State is not required to
    prove that the officer advised the suspect, or the suspect already knew, that he
    or she was entitled to refuse, although knowledge is a factor in determining
    voluntariness.
    Id. at 229-30,
    248-49.7 But, if Kemar consented while illegally
    7
    We appreciate that "New Jersey's Constitution . . . provides greater protections
    than the federal constitution when it comes to consent searches." State v. Shaw,
    
    237 N.J. 588
    , 619 (2019). For example, New Jersey requires proof of knowledge
    to establish voluntary consent. See State v. Johnson, 
    68 N.J. 349
    , 353-54 (1975).
    A-3811-15T2
    34
    detained, then the detention would taint the consent, and the fruits of the search
    would have to be suppressed. See Florida v. Royer, 
    460 U.S. 491
    , 507-08 (1983)
    (plurality opinion) (holding that "consent was tainted by the illegality [of a
    detention] and was ineffective to justify the search");
    Id. at 509
    (Powell, J.,
    concurring) (agreeing with the plurality that search "cannot be viewed as
    consensual" when given during illegal arrest).
    Officers may detain or seize a person upon a reasonable and articulable
    suspicion of criminal activity, but the "detention must be temporary and last no
    longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop."
    Id. at 498-500.
    However, as the State concedes, before the officers found what appeared to be
    a hidden compartment in Kemar's luggage, Anderson operated only on a hunch
    about Kemar. The question, then, is whether Anderson was permitted, absent
    reasonable suspicion, to approach and question Kemar as he did. Put another
    way, we must decide whether Anderson unlawfully seized or detained Kemar at
    any point before Kemar consented to the luggage search. Applying federal law,
    we conclude Anderson did not.
    But, we shall not exclude evidence on that ground, because Kemar did not enjoy
    those protections.
    A-3811-15T2
    35
    "[M]ere police questioning" in a public place "does not constitute a
    seizure" requiring reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. Florida
    v. Bostick, 
    501 U.S. 429
    , 434 (1991). "So long as a reasonable person would
    feel free 'to disregard the police and go about his business,' the encounter is
    consensual" and the officer need not have reasonable suspicion regarding the
    person's activities to continue the interaction.
    Id. at 434
    (quoting California v.
    Hodari D., 
    499 U.S. 621
    , 628 (1991)); see also 
    Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554
    (opinion by Stewart, J.,) (stating that "a person has been 'seized' within the
    meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances
    surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was
    not free to leave"). 8
    8
    We recognize, as have other courts, that most people will not feel free to deny
    an officer's requests under circumstances that the Supreme Court has declined
    to characterize as a detention. See, e.g., United States v. Thame, 
    846 F.2d 200
    ,
    202 (3d Cir. 1988). However, it has been suggested that we not take the Supreme
    Court test too literally. See 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a) (5th
    ed. 2012) (stating that "what is needed is an interpretation of the Mendenhall-
    Royer test grounded in the proposition that police, without having later to justify
    their conduct by articulating a certain degree of suspicion, should be allowed 'to
    seek cooperation, even where this may involve inconvenience or embarrassment
    for the citizen, and even though many citizens will defer to this authority of the
    police because they believe – in some vague way – that they should'" (citation
    omitted)).
    A-3811-15T2
    36
    "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual,
    they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the
    individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage – as
    long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests
    is required." 
    Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434-35
    (internal citations omitted); see also
    Florida v. Rodriguez, 
    469 U.S. 1
    , 5-6 (1984) (per curiam) (stating "[t]he initial
    contact between the officers and respondent, where they simply asked if he
    would step aside and talk with them" implicated "no Fourth Amendment
    interest").
    Viewing the totality of circumstances, several factors support the
    conclusion that Kemar was free to leave or to terminate the interaction with the
    officers. Anderson did not display a weapon, accuse Kemar of a crime, use a
    commanding tone of voice, or intimidate Kemar with the presence of several
    officers (at least before he consented to the search). He told Kemar he was not
    under arrest and not in trouble.
    In Mendenhall, the agents – as did Anderson – approached a traveler in a
    public concourse, wearing plain clothes, and not displaying weapons; they
    identified themselves as law enforcement officers and then asked, not
    demanded, to see the traveler's identification and 
    ticket. 446 U.S. at 547-48
    .
    A-3811-15T2
    37
    Justice Stewart concluded that "no seizure occurred."
    Id. at 555.
    As in Kemar's
    case, absent were circumstances that "might indicate a seizure," such as "the
    threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer,
    some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or
    tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request mi ght be
    compelled."
    Id. at 554.
    Nor did the interaction become a detention after the
    agents inquired about discrepancies in the traveler's documents, she agreed to
    the agents' request that she accompany them to the office to answer further
    questions, and she there consented to a search of her person and luggage.
    Id. at 548,
    557-59. She was not told she had to go; and her ticket and identification
    had been returned.
    Id. at 557-58.
    By contrast, the Supreme Court found that narcotics agents seized an air
    traveler when they approached him at the airport concourse, told him they were
    narcotics agents, accused him of transporting drugs, asked for and then retained
    his ticket and driver's license, retrieved and held the person's luggage, and then
    asked him to go to a room forty feet away without indicating he was free to
    depart. 
    Royer, 460 U.S. at 494-95
    , 501.
    Applying Mendenhall and Royer, the Third Circuit concluded that a
    police-citizen interaction at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, which has
    A-3811-15T2
    38
    striking parallels to the case before us, did not constitute an investigative stop.
    
    Thame, 846 F.2d at 201
    . A city police officer, followed by a drug enforcement
    agent and an Amtrak investigator, approached the defendant as he reached the
    train station lobby from the train platform.
    Id. After the
    officer identified
    himself, Thame agreed to speak to him, to give his name, and to show his train
    ticket, which bore a different person's name.
    Id. Thame explained
    it was a
    friend's ticket, and showed other identification that had his correct name.
    Id. The officer
    showed the identification to the drug enforcement agent, then
    returned it to Thame.
    Id. at 202.
    The officer then asked Thame if he could
    search his bag and Thame refused, because it contained "sensitive material."
    Id. at 202.
    But, Thame consented to a dog sniff, which the officer proposed as an
    alternative.
    Id. The officer
    then asked Thame if he would mind accompanying
    them to the Amtrak office, which would be more private and out of the way.
    Id. Thame carried
    his own bag to the office, where a dog twice alerted to drugs .
    Id. A warrant
    was then obtained for the search.
    Id. The court
    rejected Thame's argument that he was seized the moment he
    refused to consent to the search.
    Id. at 204.
       "Unlike the defendants in
    Mendenhall, Royer, and Rodriguez, Thame did not consent to a search after he
    moved to another area in response to the officers' request, but rather was only
    A-3811-15T2
    39
    asked to move to the Amtrak police office after he consented to the sniff test."
    Id. at 203.
    Likewise, in this case, Kemar had already agreed to a search of his
    luggage when Anderson suggested that they go to the office 200 yards away.
    Thus, even if Kemar were unlawfully detained in the office, the consent to search
    was not tainted because Kemar gave it during the consensual encounter in the
    baggage claim area.
    In any event, we are satisfied that Anderson had a reasonable and
    articulable suspicion to detain Kemar by the time he asked Kemar to accompany
    him to the office. In Royer, the Court agreed that police had sufficient suspicion
    to justify an investigative detention based on: the defendant traveled under a
    false name; he paid cash for a one-way ticket; he checked his bag under a
    different name; and aspects of his appearance and conduct were consistent with
    those of a drug 
    courier. 460 U.S. at 502
    . The Court noted that "had Royer
    voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage while he was justifiably being
    detained on reasonable suspicion, the products of the search would be admissible
    against him."
    Ibid. The circumstances involving
    Kemar provide comparable support for
    detaining him in the office, to complete the search to which he had already
    consented.    The sergeant discovered fresh glue and a bulge, indicating
    A-3811-15T2
    40
    something was secreted in the luggage wall; Kemar misstated how much cash
    he was carrying, but ultimately admitted he possessed $5000 on his person;
    Kemar traveled on a one-way ticket, recently purchased, from a drug source city;
    he said he was there to visit friends and family, but he provided no details about
    where or how long he would stay; and he repeatedly looked over his shoulder
    and made multiple phone calls as he entered the baggage claim area. Applying
    his significant experience and training, Anderson stated that these factors
    created more than just a hunch that Kemar was a drug courier. We agree.
    Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendants' motion to
    suppress the fruits of the search of Kemar's luggage. As the trial court found,
    he voluntarily consented to the search; and, we conclude, no unlawful detention
    tainted that consent.
    IV.
    Davis argues his double-jeopardy rights bar retrial on the leader-of-a-
    narcotics-trafficking network charge, on which the jury was hung. He invokes
    the "same conduct" or "same evidence" test for determining whether a
    subsequent prosecution is for the "same offense" as the one for which a
    defendant has been convicted. See U.S. Const. amend. V (stating that no person
    "shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
    A-3811-15T2
    41
    limb"); N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 11 (stating "[n]o person shall, after acquittal, be tried
    for the same offense"). 9 We review his argument de novo. 
    Miles, 229 N.J. at 90
    .
    The "same evidence test" is an "an alter ego" of the "same conduct test,"
    id. at 101
    (2017) (Albin, J., dissenting), and it bars subsequent prosecution "if it
    relie[s] on the same evidence used to prove an earlier charge,"
    id. at 93.
    See
    also State v. DeLuca, 
    108 N.J. 98
    , 107 (1987) (stating that "[i]f the same
    evidence used in the first prosecution is the sole evidence in the second, the
    prosecution of the second offense is barred") (emphasis added); State v. Colon,
    
    374 N.J. Super. 199
    , 217 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting DeLuca). The "same
    evidence" test applies to crimes committed on or before the date of the Cour t's
    opinion in Miles, when it abandoned that 
    test. 229 N.J. at 86
    . Instead, the Court
    held, consistent with the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, that going
    forward the "same elements" test, first enunciated in Blockburger v. United
    9
    Although our State Constitution refers only to trial after acquittal, our courts
    have interpreted it to be "coextensive with the guarantee of the federal
    Constitution." State v. Miles, 
    229 N.J. 83
    , 92 (2017). Yet, our Supreme Court
    has in the past interpreted its double-jeopardy guarantee as more protective of
    the federal guarantee.
    Id. at 101-03
    (Albin, J., dissenting).
    A-3811-15T2
    42
    States, 
    284 U.S. 299
    (1932), would be "the sole test for determining what
    constitutes the 'same offense' for purposes of double jeopardy." Ibid.10
    We recognize that in successfully proving the conspiracy count, and the
    distribution-or-possession-with-intent-to-distribute count, the State relied on
    evidence that Davis directed others, including Bernard and Kemar – evidence it
    would presumably utilize in retrying the leader count. However, we need not
    delve into whether the State would, in the subsequent prosecution, rely solely
    on the evidence it presented in the first. That is because a retrial after a hung
    jury would not offend the double jeopardy clause.
    "[T]he failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which
    terminates jeopardy." Richardson v. United States, 
    468 U.S. 317
    , 325 (1984);
    State v. Cruz, 
    171 N.J. 419
    , 425-26 (2002) (reaching the same conclusion under
    the New Jersey Constitution); State v. Travers, 
    229 N.J. Super. 144
    , 149 (App.
    Div. 1988) (stating that "a prerequisite to the operation of" the double jeopardy
    bar "is the termination of the former prosecution upon which the claim of double
    jeopardy is predicated"). Although "[i]n some sense a defendant is in jeopardy
    10
    Davis does not argue that he satisfies the "same elements" test. Under that
    test, "if each statute at issue requires proof of an element that the other does not,
    they do not constitute the same offense and a second prosecution may proceed."
    
    Miles, 229 N.J. at 93
    .
    A-3811-15T2
    43
    when required to be retried following a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury [,]
    . . . the jeopardy to which the defendant is exposed is considered a continuation
    of original jeopardy, which was not terminated by the mistrial." State v. Abbati,
    
    99 N.J. 418
    , 426 (1985).
    In support of this hung jury rule, the Supreme Court has cited the public's
    interest in the sound administration of justice. "[A] failure of the jury to agree
    on a verdict [is] an instance of 'manifest necessity' which permit[s] a trial judge
    to terminate the first trial and retry the defendant, because 'the ends of public
    justice would otherwise be defeated.'" 
    Richardson, 468 U.S. at 323-24
    (quoting
    United States v. Perez, 
    22 U.S. 579
    , 580 (1824)). Barring a retrial after a hung
    jury "'would create an insuperable obstacle to the administration of justice in
    many cases in which there is no semblance of the type of oppressive practices
    at which the double-jeopardy prohibition is aimed.'"
    Id. at 324
    (quoting Wade
    v. Hunter, 
    336 U.S. 684
    , 688-89 (1949)).
    If a jury acquits a defendant of a charge, and in so doing, determines that
    the government has failed to establish facts that are essential elements of the
    hung count, then principles of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy would bar
    retrial of the hung count. Yeager v. United States, 
    557 U.S. 110
    , 119 (2009)
    (stating that "'when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid
    A-3811-15T2
    44
    and final judgment' of acquittal, it 'cannot again be litigated' in a second trial for
    a separate offense" (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 
    397 U.S. 436
    , 443 (1970))); see
    also State v. Snellbaker, 
    272 N.J. Super. 129
    , 136 (App. Div. 1994) (stating that
    where jury hangs on greater charge, the New Jersey Constitution "might well
    bar prosecution 'after acquittal' at least of an elemental lesser-included offense,
    even if both charges had been originally moved simultaneously in the same
    proceeding"). However, Davis was not completely acquitted of any charge. 11
    Even if the conspiracy count for which Davis was convicted were
    considered a lesser-included offense of the leader charge about which the jury
    was hung – a point the State disputes – double-jeopardy principles do not bar
    retrial of the leader charge. As we observed in Snellbaker:
    [W]here a jury is deadlocked on indictable offenses
    simultaneously moved with lesser or lesser-included
    charges on which [the] defendant is convicted, the
    reprosecution of the greater offense is not barred
    because the "retrial . . . is not a successive prosecution"
    and "[t]he jury's failure to reach a verdict on [one] count
    is not an event that terminates jeopardy."
    [Id. at 135 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCane, 
    539 A.2d 340
    , 346 (Pa. 1988)).]
    11
    We acknowledge that the jury found that the money laundering involved the
    second-degree range of at least $75,000, but not the first-degree range of
    $500,000 or more as charged.
    A-3811-15T2
    45
    Other courts agree. See also United States v. Bordeaux, 
    121 F.3d 1187
    , 1193
    (8th Cir. 1997) (stating that "where the jury expressly indicates that it is unable
    to reach an agreement on the greater charge, a conviction on a lesser included
    offense does not constitute an implied acquittal of the greater offense and
    presents no bar to retrial on the greater offense"); People v. Fields, 
    914 P.2d 832
    , 838 (Cal. 1996) (holding that double-jeopardy principles did not bar retrial
    of greater offense on which jury expressly deadlocked, where jury returned
    conviction on lesser charge; but statute barred retrial); Hunt v. State, 
    622 A.2d 155
    , 157 (Md. App. 1993) (stating that under the Fifth Amendment's double -
    jeopardy clause, "when an individual is indicted on two offenses, one being a
    lesser-included offense of the other, and the jury is hopelessly deadlocked as to
    the greater offense but has entered a judgment on the lesser-included offense,
    the government is not precluded from prosecuting the greater offense").
    Had the State waited to indict Davis on the leader charge until after his
    trial and conviction of the other charges, we would be compelled to apply the
    relevant tests to ascertain whether the subsequent trial was for the same offense.
    See Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    (1977) (stating that double-jeopardy clause
    barred sequential prosecution of greater offense of auto theft after defendant
    pleaded guilty to lesser charge of joyriding); State v. Dively, 
    92 N.J. 573
    , 582-
    A-3811-15T2
    46
    83 (1983) (holding that double jeopardy barred trying a driver for death by auto
    after he pleaded guilty to reckless driving, which was an essential element of the
    more serious charge). Such sequential prosecutions would raise the kind of
    oppression that the double-jeopardy clause is designed to prevent. But, the State
    tried the charges together.
    In sum, we reject Davis's argument that double-jeopardy principles bar
    retrial of the leader charge, about which the jury was unable to reach a
    unanimous verdict.
    V.
    Defendants' remaining points require relatively brief comment.
    A.
    We reject Davis's contention that his money laundering conviction must
    be reversed. Davis argues the State failed to prove that he separately concealed,
    disguised, or legitimized the proceeds of the drug transactions. However, the
    statutory provisions upon which the State relied, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a) and
    25(b)(1), do not require that showing.
    Under subsection (a), a person is guilty of money laundering if he or she
    "transports or possesses property known or which a reasonable person would
    believe to be derived from criminal activity." N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a). N.J.S.A.
    A-3811-15T2
    47
    2C:21-25(d) states that a property is "known to be derived from criminal activity
    if the person knows that the property involved represents proceeds from some
    form . . . of criminal activity." N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(d); see State v. Harris, 
    373 N.J. Super. 253
    , 265 (App. Div. 2004) (noting that N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25 "'reach[es]
    well beyond'" laundering behavior and criminalizes "'any possession of property
    known to be derived from criminal activity'" (quoting Cannel, New Jersey
    Criminal Code Annotated, cmt. on N.J.S.A. 2C:21-23 (2004))).
    Subsection (b)(1) does require two transactions. It makes it a crime if a
    person "engages in a transaction involving property known or which a
    reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity . . . with
    the intent to facilitate or promote the criminal activity . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:21-
    25(b)(1). But, the element does not require a separate predicate act, nor does it
    require concealment. 
    Harris, 373 N.J. Super. at 262-63
    . It can be satisfied by
    plowing the proceeds back into the criminal operation that generated them.
    Id. at 266
    (affirming conviction under subsection (b)(1) where the defendant
    received proceeds from fraudulent real estate transactions, and then "assisted
    her accomplices in using those proceeds to fund further fraudulent
    transactions").
    A-3811-15T2
    48
    By contrast N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(b)(2) includes the element of concealment,
    by making it a crime if a person
    b. engages in a transaction involving property known or
    which a reasonable person would believe to be derived
    from criminal activity
    ....
    (2) knowing that the transaction is designed in
    whole or in part:
    (a) to conceal or disguise the nature,
    location, source, ownership or control of
    the property derived from criminal
    activity; or
    (b) to avoid a transaction reporting
    requirement under the laws of this State or
    any other state or of the United States . . . .
    See 
    Harris, 373 N.J. Super. at 265-66
    (rejecting argument that State needed to
    prove the defendant concealed or "washed" criminal proceeds, as the State did
    not charge her under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(b)(2)). In sum, we shall not disturb
    Davis's money laundering conviction.
    B.
    We also reject Davis's argument that the court should have declared a
    mistrial when one juror, after sixteen hours of deliberation, sent a note stating,
    "Your Honor, I don't want to continue to be part of the deliberations. This is
    A-3811-15T2
    49
    causing some high frustration levels on my part with other members of the jury
    and I don't feel that I can continue to deliberate with a clear head."
    The comment pertained to the jury's deliberative process. See State v.
    Valenzuela, 
    136 N.J. 458
    , 471-72 (1994) (holding the trial court erred in
    removing a juror after she stated that fellow jurors were "ganging up" on her,
    they had a "different opinion" of the case and they called her a "hindrance" and
    "very confused"). The comment did not reflect that the juror was unable to
    continue because of matters personal to her, unrelated to her interaction with the
    other jurors. See State v. Jenkins, 
    182 N.J. 112
    , 124-25 (2004); 
    Valenzuela, 136 N.J. at 472-73
    . The court appropriately dismissed the jury for the day, to allow
    a "cooling off."     When the jury returned several days later to resume
    deliberations, the juror expressed no further concerns about the ability to
    continue. We discern no error.
    C.
    Davis's argument that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress
    phone calls recorded by investigators while he was in Jamaica lacks sufficient
    merit to warrant extended discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). As the listening post was
    in New Jersey, it matters not that some of the calls originated from, or connected
    to, Davis's phone in Jamaica. See State v. Ates, 
    217 N.J. 253
    , 270 (2014)
    A-3811-15T2
    50
    (holding New Jersey law, like federal law, authorizes wiretaps "when the
    listening post – and thus the interception – is within the court's jurisdiction, even
    if the phone is located elsewhere"); see also United States v. Cano-Flores, 
    796 F.3d 83
    , 86 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding that, since listening post was in Texas,
    district court had jurisdiction to authorize wiretapping calls involving devices
    in Mexico).
    D.
    We turn to Bernard's remaining arguments. We discern no abuse of
    discretion in the court's denial of her motion to disclose the identities of two
    confidential informants.     See State v. Milligan, 
    71 N.J. 373
    , 384 (1976)
    (establishing abuse-of-discretion standard of review). Bernard had the burden
    to overcome the informant's privilege. N.J.R.E. 516. She did not demonstrate
    that the State disclosed the confidential informants' identity, N.J.R.E. 516(a), or
    that disclosure was essential to a fair trial, N.J.R.E. 516(b). Bernard has not
    established that the informants were essential witnesses to a basic issue in the
    case, or were active participants in the crime for which she was prosecuted. See
    
    Milligan, 71 N.J. at 383-84
    . It is not enough to allege without support that the
    informants might have exculpated her.
    Id. at 392
    (rejecting as speculative claim
    that informant would impeach State police witness).
    A-3811-15T2
    51
    E.
    Bernard also contends she was entitled to a mistrial because the State did
    not disclose, before trial, that Hoffman was familiar with Bernard's voice
    because he conversed with her about her children and other matters unrelated to
    the charged offenses, after he arrested her. Citing Rule 3:13-3(b)(1)(B), she
    contends these statements were "admissions or declarations against penal
    interest made by the defendant that are known to the prosecution but not
    recorded," and the State was obliged to disclose a summary of them before trial.
    She argues that had she known in advance that Hoffman would rely on this
    conversation to identify her voice on the recordings, she would have sought a
    "voice lineup"; she would have moved to suppress the statements because they
    were made without Miranda12 warnings; and she would have approached plea
    negotiations differently.
    First, it is unclear that the fact that Bernard chatted with Hoffman about
    her children was an admission or declaration against penal interest,
    notwithstanding that it helped enable Hoffman to identify her voice. On its face,
    the discovery rule pertains to the substance of statements a defendant made, not
    12
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    (1966).
    A-3811-15T2
    52
    a law enforcement officer's observations about the tone of the defendant's voice,
    or other physical characteristics.
    Second, we are unpersuaded that, even if the State violated its discovery
    obligation, the court would have been compelled to order a mistrial under the
    circumstances. A court exercises broad discretion in determining what remedy,
    if any, it should impose for a failure to provide discovery, State v. Heisler, 
    422 N.J. Super. 399
    , 415 (App. Div. 2011), and, in particular, whether a mistrial is
    warranted, State v. Harris, 
    181 N.J. 391
    , 518 (2004). "[A] mistrial should be
    granted 'only in those situations which would otherwise result in manifest
    injustice.'" 
    Harris, 181 N.J. at 518
    (quoting State v. DiRienzo, 
    53 N.J. 360
    , 383
    (1969)).
    Bernard does not persuade us that she would have pursued a different trial
    strategy had the discovery been provided.
    Id. at 519
    (stating "[d]enials of
    mistrial motions have been overturned where 'a different trial strategy would
    have been employed' but for the discovery violation" (quoting State v. Blake,
    
    234 N.J. Super. 166
    , 175 (App. Div. 1989))). Bernard does not deny that she
    was already aware, before trial, that Hoffman arrested her, and that she spoke,
    even briefly to him. Furthermore, in identifying Bernard on the recordings,
    Hoffman also relied on other circumstantial evidence, including people calling
    A-3811-15T2
    53
    Bernard by her name in the conversations. Bernard provides no competent
    evidence that she would have pleaded guilty, and under what terms, if only this
    particular discovery were provided pretrial.      Nor are we persuaded that a
    Miranda motion would have succeeded in suppressing the voice identification.
    See United States v. Mohammed, 
    693 F.3d 192
    , 197 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (stating
    that "voice identification is not the type of incriminating information Miranda
    protects," and rejecting the defendant's argument that "his statements were used
    against him because [the officer] was only able to identify [the defendant's]
    voice on the recordings at trial from having heard it first during the
    interrogation").
    In sum, any failure to disclose did not work a manifest injustice
    compelling a mistrial.
    VI.
    Finally, we shall not disturb the sentences imposed on defendants. After
    merging the conspiracy count, the court sentenced Davis to seventeen years with
    eight years of parole ineligibility, and Bernard to fifteen years with six years of
    parole ineligibility, for first-degree distribution or possession with intent to
    distribute cocaine. On the money laundering count, the court imposed a term of
    eight years with four years of parole ineligibility on Davis, and six years with
    A-3811-15T2
    54
    no parole ineligibility period on Bernard.      Consistent with the mandate of
    N.J.S.A. 2C:21-27(c), the money laundering sentences were consecutive to the
    drug distribution sentence. Thus, Davis must serve twelve years before parole
    eligibility on a twenty-five-year aggregate term; Bernard must serve six years
    on a twenty-one-year aggregate term.
    With respect to Davis and Bernard, the court gave great weight to three
    aggravating factors: the risk defendant would reoffend, N.J.S.A. 2C:44 -1(a)(3);
    the substantial likelihood of involvement in organized criminal activity,
    N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(5); and the need to deter the defendant and others, N.J.S.A.
    2C:44-1(a)(9).
    The court found two mitigating factors for both defendants, but weighed
    them differently. The court found factors seven, no history of prior delinquency
    or criminal activity or had led a law abiding life for a substantial period of time
    before committing the present offenses, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(7), and factor
    eleven, imprisonment would entail excessive hardship to the defendant or the
    defendant's dependents, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(11). However, noting that Davis
    had a prior contact with the criminal justice system, the court gave factor seven
    only slight weight; but gave it moderate weight in Bernard's case. The court
    gave factor eleven slight weight as to both defendants. The court concluded
    A-3811-15T2
    55
    that, for Davis, the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating
    factors; for Bernard, the court found that the aggravating factors simply
    outweighed the mitigating.
    Although these are certainly substantial sentences, we discern no basis to
    disturb the court's exercise of sentencing discretion. The sentencing guidelines
    were not violated; the court based its findings of aggravating and mitigating
    factors upon "competent and credible evidence in the record"; and the court's
    application of the guidelines does not make "the sentence clearly unreasonable
    so as to shock the judicial conscience." See State v. Fuentes, 
    217 N.J. 57
    , 70
    (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 
    95 N.J. 334
    , 364-65
    (1984)).
    Affirmed.
    A-3811-15T2
    56