State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Johnson

261 A.2d 662, 55 N.J. 331, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 148

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 16, 1970·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in the appellate court. 106 N. J. Super. 295, 299 (1969). We add that we see no basis in fact for the finding in the majority opinion that upon defendant’s response to the officer’s preliminary question, defendant’s “psychological defenses against full self-incrimination were down” (106 N. J. Super., at 298). Defendant, who testified, did not say he gave the written statement for that reason.' In fact, defendant denied receiving any warnings at all. The “taint” issue was thus posited entirely upon the officer’s testimony, and that testimony does not support a finding that the warnings were ineffective on the thesis that the defendant felt “the cat was already out of the bag.”

For reversal — Chief Justice Weiutraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hanemait — 6.

For affirmance — Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in the appellate court. 106 N. J. Super. 295, 299 (1969). We add that we see no basis in fact for the finding in the majority opinion that upon defendant’s response to the officer’s preliminary question, defendant’s “psychological defenses against full self-incrimination were down” (106 N. J. Super., at 298). Defendant, who testified, did not say he gave the written statement for that reason.' In fact, defendant denied receiving any warnings at all. The “taint” issue was thus posited entirely upon the officer’s testimony, and that testimony does not support a finding that the warnings were ineffective on the thesis that the defendant felt “the cat was already out of the bag.”

For reversal — Chief Justice Weiutraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hanemait — 6.

For affirmance — Hone.

State v. Johnson, 261 A.2d 662, 55 N.J. 331, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 148 (N.J. 1970).

Pincite

261 A.2d 662 (State v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related