State v. Flower

539 A.2d 1223, 224 N.J. Super. 90
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedFebruary 18, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 539 A.2d 1223 (State v. Flower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Flower, 539 A.2d 1223, 224 N.J. Super. 90 (N.J. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

224 N.J. Super. 90 (1988)
539 A.2d 1223

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK A. FLOWER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted January 19, 1988.
Decided February 18, 1988.

Before Judges MICHELS, SHEBELL and GAYNOR.

Nicholas L. Bissell, Jr., Somerset County Prosecutor, for appellant State (Timothy Van Hise, Assistant Somerset County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the letter brief).

Alfred A. Slocum, Public Defender, for respondent Frank A. Flower (Bernadette DeCastro, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, amicus curiae, pro se, (Debra L. Stone, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Lorraine E. Stanley submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Law Division that suppressed the statements of defendant Frank A. Flower to investigators from the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office and to a caseworker from the Division of Youth and Family Services is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Imbriani in his written opinion of April 30, 1987, which is reported as State v. Flower, 224 N.J. Super. 208 (Law Div. 1987). The trial court's *91 decision that Miranda applied where, as here, the Division of Youth and Family Services caseworker conducted a custodial interview of defendant concerning charges of aggravated sexual assault is consistent with the principles discussed in our decision filed today in State v. Helewa, 223 N.J. Super. 40 (App.Div. 1988).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dcpp v. D.B. and D.H., in the Matter of S.B.
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2023
Div. of Youth & Family Serv. v. Robert M.
788 A.2d 888 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
State v. P.Z.
703 A.2d 901 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1997)
State in Interest of BG
674 A.2d 178 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1996)
State v. P.Z.
666 A.2d 1000 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
State v. Ives
648 A.2d 129 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1994)
State v. Cleary
641 A.2d 102 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1994)
State v. Carpenter
633 A.2d 1005 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
Bradley v. State
559 A.2d 1234 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 A.2d 1223, 224 N.J. Super. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-flower-njsuperctappdiv-1988.