Regardless of the juvenile’s age, the law enforcement
officers must use their best efforts to locate the adult prior
to the interrogation and must demonstrate their efforts to
the trial court’s satisfaction.
See also State in the Interest of S.H., 61 N.J. 108, 114
(1972); State in the Interest of Carlo, 48 N.J. 224, 240
(1966); State ex rel. O.F., 327 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div.
1999); State in the Interest of J.F., 286 N.J. Super. 89 (App.
Div. 1995); State in the Interest of J.P.B., 143 N.J. Super.
96 (App. Div. 1976); State in the Interest of A.B.M., 125
N.J. Super. 162, 168 (App. Div.), aff’d o.b. 63 N.J. 531
(1973); State in the Interest of R.W., 115 N.J. Super. 286
(App. Div. 1971), aff’d o.b. 61 N.J. 118 (1972); State in
the Interest of B.D., 116 N.J. Super. 585 (App. Div. 1969),
aff’d o.b. 56 N.J. 325 (1970).
In State in the Interest of J.D.H., N.J. Super.
2001 WL 69060 (App. Div. 2001) where a police officer
suggested questions for a juvenile sexual assault victim to
ask the juvenile defendant during a voluntary telephone
conversation, the court concludes that the telephone
conversation constitutes a police interrogation, which,
because it was conducted with a juvenile who was the
target of the police investigation and was undertaken
whithout parental notification, was inadmissable.
Parental presence is also required during the
administration of a polygraph test to a juvenile. State in
the Interest of J.P.B., 143 N.J. Super. 96, 110 (App. Div.
1976).
- Voluntariness of a Juvenile’s Confession
State in the Interest of S.H., 61 N.J. 108 (1972); State
in the Interest of Carlo, 48 N.J. 224 (1966); State in the
Interest of J.F., 286 N.J. Super. 89 (App. Div. 1995); State
in the Interest of A.B.M., 125 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div.),
aff’d o.b. 63 N.J. 531 (1973); State in the Interest of R.W.,
115 N.J. Super. 286 (App. Div. 1971), aff’d o.b. 61 N.J.
118 (1972); State in the Interest of B.D., 116 N.J. Super.
585 (App. Div. 1969), aff’d o.b. 56 N.J. 325 (1970).
Since a minor is considered more impressionable and
easily subjected to psychological coercion than an adult,
a confession by a juvenile is generally held to a higher
standard of voluntariness than one obtained from an
adult under similar circumstances. Thus, special care
must be taken to ensure the complete voluntariness of a
youth’s statement. Generally, a youth should not be
questioned either as long or as vigorously as an adult.
Relay or extremely intensive interrogation should also be
avoided. A juvenile should not be held in isolation for
prolonged periods or denied food, drink or medical
services. Force or coercive measures should not be
employed.Based on these factors, confessions have been found
involuntary in the following cases: State in the Interest of
Carlo, supra (confession of 13 and 15 year old boys held
inadmissible where youths were relentlessly questioned
at night for 6-1/2 to 7 hours in the oppressive
environment of a police station, several inconsistencies
appeared between the statements and the uncontro-
verted circumstantial and testimonial evidence, and on
four or five occasions the juveniles’ parents requested to
see their children, but were refused access); State in the
Interest of B.D., supra (statement by 16 year old excluded
where the boy was persistently questioned by police on
six separate occasions over a two-month period, five
officers were present during the interrogation preceding
the statement, the confession was at odds with the
independent evidence of the crime, and no effort had
been made to communicate with B.D.’s mother or to
secure her presence during the questioning); State in the
Interest of S.H., supra (confession of 10 year old mental
defective found invalid where he was questioned for 90
minutes in a police station and his father was denied
admission to the interrogation by the police); State ex rel.
O.F., 327 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 1999) (confession
of 13 year old found invalid where he was extensively and
intensively questioned in an oppressive environment at
the prosecutor’s office, his mother was excluded from the
interview room, Miranda rights were not explained, and
the officers failed to stop questioning once the juvenile
began to implicate himself).In State in the Interest of B.G., 289 N.J. Super. 361
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 145 N.J. 374 (1996), the
confession of a 12 year old juvenile charged with conduct
that would have constituted second degree sexual assault
if committed by an adult was properly obtained and
admitted in evidence in delinquency proceeding despite
the juvenile’s contention that he was neurologically
impaired and suffered from attention deficit disorder.
The juvenile was difficult in terms of behavior, was
socially immature, was not a good student, did not have
below average IQ, had chronological and intellectual ages
of 12, knew how to read and write, appeared to have no
difficulty answering questions posed to him, signed a
waiver with his mother present, voluntarily spoke to the
detective, and at no time asserted his confession was
coerced.