NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0314-18T4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. YANG BIN, a/k/a WANG BIN, WANG PING, BIN YANG, CHEN BIN, SUN BIN, YI CAO, YU CHEN, HUBI CHEN, YI CHO, CAO GU, WU YI, and CHEN MING, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________ Argued October 13, 2020 – Decided December 8, 2020 Before Judges Sabatino and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 17-08-1735. Douglas R. Helman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Douglas R. Helman, of counsel and on the brief). Catlin A. Davis, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Catlin A. Davis, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Following a three-day jury trial, defendant was convicted of third-degree computer theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25(c); and third-degree theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. The convictions stemmed from defendant stealing $550 of free slot play from the player card of a member of the Tropicana Casino's rewards program, and then using the stolen free play to win $750 at the casino. The trial proofs included video surveillance footage depicting the events, and defendant's unrecorded statement to police while in custody admitting that he paid another individual money for access to the card. Defendant was sentenced to an extended term of seven years' imprisonment and ordered to pay $1300 in restitution. Defendant now appeals from his convictions and sentence, raising the following arguments for our consideration: POINT I THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT MIRANDA[1] DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE. OFFICER WHEELER PROMPTED 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). A-0314-18T4 2 [DEFENDANT] TO GIVE A FORMAL STATEMENT WHILE IN A HOLDING CELL, GOING BEYOND A ROUTINE BOOKING INQUIRY AND SUBJECTING [DEFENDANT] TO A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, AND THE STATE CANNOT PROVE [DEFENDANT] KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHTS DUE TO HIS LOW ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. SUPPRESSION IS REQUIRED. POINT II ALLOWING THREE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO THE CONTENTS OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS, AND MAKE IDENTIFICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION, VIOLATED [DEFENDANT'S] RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, NECESSITATING REVERSAL. POINT III THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON HOW TO EVALUATE [DEFENDANT'S] INCULPATORY OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT. (Not Raised Below). POINT IV A REMAND FOR RESENTENCING IS REQUIRED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF RESTITUTION. Having considered the arguments and applicable law in light of the record, we affirm the convictions, but remand the matter for a restitution hearing. A-0314-18T4 3 I. The following pertinent facts were presented to the jury. On January 28, 2017, Joseph Fazzia went to the Tropicana ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals