State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Johnson

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

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 16, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 261 A.2d 662 (State v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.2d 662, 55 N.J. 331, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-nj-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack