State v. Graziano

 State v. Graziano

       Defendant appealed from his convictions and sentence for various crimes including arson. Four Jewish synagogues and community centers were subject to arson, attempted arson, or vandalism in 2011 and 2012. Police investigated and determined defendant was a suspect. Defendant's home was searched pursuant to a warrant and the police seized various pieces of evidence. Defendant agreed to provide biological samples and to be interviewed. 

       Defendant was read his Miranda rights and still agreed to be interviewed. Defendant denied his involvement for hours, then at approximately 4 a.m., the interview ended. Another officer entered the room with defendant's mother. The mother became upset and left the room and defendant spoke with the officer for 30 minutes without the interview being recorded. 

       The officer then turned the equipment back on and defendant admitted to the arsons. Defendant and co-defendant were indicted for 30 crimes relating to fire-bombing and vandalism of multiple Jewish synagogues and community centers. 

       Defendant moved to suppress his recorded statement and the judge denied the motion, finding the time and length of the interview was not unduly coercive and another reading of defendant's Miranda rights was not required. Defendant was convicted of 21 crimes including terrorism, aggravated arson, intimidation, assault, and related crimes and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 35 years. 

       On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court found there was sufficient evidence supporting the warrant. The court also found the police had no obligation to re-administer the Miranda warning as the warnings had been read twice already and defendant was not told that the interview had ended. 

       The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by directing the jury to continue deliberations after the jury reported being deadlocked. The jury instructions relative to the Anti-Terrorism Act were appropriate and consistent with the Act, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:38-2(a)(1) and (2). The judge properly considered mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing defendant.

Source NJLJ April 15, 2021