where the trial court allows the statement to be used to
impeach the defendant’s credibility, it must instruct the
jury that it may, although it need not, consider the
statement only for the limited purpose of affecting the
defendant’s credibility as a witness and that it cannot be
used as evidence of guilt.
The Appellate Division recently disallowed the
prosecution from using an improperly obtained statement
solely for impeachment purposes based on evidence that an
assistant prosecutor had directed a detective to withhold
Miranda warnings prior to questioning defendant. The
Court ruled that the holding of Burris did not extend to
instances of “prosecutorial overzealousness which deprived
a defendant of his Miranda rights.” State v. Sosinski, 331
N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 2000).
K. Juveniles And Miranda
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently clarified
and refined the law governing juvenile confessions in State
v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000). In upholding the
admissibility of defendant’s confession, the Court
reaffirmed that courts should consider the totality of the
circumstances when determining the voluntariness, and
thus the admissibility, of confessions by juveniles in
custody. It also emphasized that the absence of a parent or
legal guardian from the interrogation is a highly significant
fact when determining whether the State has demonstrated
that the juvenile’s waiver of rights was knowing, intelligent,
and voluntary. It will be exceptionally difficult for the State
to successfully meet its burden in situations in which the
police deliberately exclude a parent or legal guardian from
the interrogation and the confession almost invariably will
be suppressed.
The Court also announced a bright-line rule regarding
the questioning of a juvenile under the age of fourteen. In
that situation, the absence of an adult will render the young
offender’s statement inadmissible as a matter of law, unless
the parent or legal guardian is unwilling to be present or is
genuinely unavailable. Regardless of the juvenile’s age, law
enforcement officers must use their best efforts to locate the
adult before beginning any questioning, and must account
for those efforts to the trial court’s satisfaction.
In State in the Interest of J.D.H., __ N.J. Super. __,
, (App. Div. 2001), the Appellate Division extended
the guidelines enunciated in Presha to circumstances where
it is the victim, rather than the police, who questions the
defendant by telephone at the direction of law
enforcement. Notably, the Court did not discuss the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v.
Perkings, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), which arguably compels a
contrary result.In State in the Matter of O.F., 327 N.J. Super. 102
(App. Div. 1999), the Appellate Division engaged in a
comprehensive survey of juvenile confession law, and
concluded that the confession of a 13-year-old juvenile
required suppression based in large measure on the
exclusion of the juvenile’s mother during custodial
questioning. That determination was subsequently
validated by the decision rendered in Presha; see also State in
the Interest of S.H., 61 N.J. 108 (1972) (holding that
custodial questioning of juveniles must be conducted “with
the utmost fundamental fairness and in accordance with
the highest standards of due process and fundamental
fairness”).Note also that in State in the Interest of J.P.B., 143 N.J.
Super. 96 (App. Div. 1976), the Appellate Division
concluded that a juvenile resident at a youth probationary
institution was entitled to Miranda warnings when
participating in a group discussion intended to encourage
admission of anti-social behavior. The Court reasoned that
the warnings were necessary because the session was
sufficiently analogous to a custodial interrogation and
because the supervisor was acting as an agent of the State.
But see State in the Interest of A.B., 278 N.J. Super. 380 (Ch.
Div. 1994) (holding that a juvenile was not subjected to a
custodial interrogation when questioned by an office with
the Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program in the living
room of his home regarding drugs found by his mother).L. Investigative Detentions and MirandaBased on the current state of the law, police are flatly
prohibited from questioning a suspect -- irrespective of the
issuance of Miranda warnings -- when he is detained
pursuant to an investigative detention order issued in
accordance with R. 3:5A-1. In State v, Rolle, 265 N.J.
Super, 482 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 562 (1993),
defendant was detained for a period not to exceed five
hours for photographs and fingerprinting. During that
time he was questioned after waiving his Miranda rights
and provided a taped confession. The Appellate Division
subsequently reversed defendant’s murder conviction,
holding that the State had misconceived the function and
scope of R. 3:5A-1 when it questioned defendant during his
detention. That error, according to the Appellate Division,
necessitated suppression of defendant’s confession.Where, however, an investigative detention order is
constructively dissolved by the filing of formal charges
based on the accumulation of additional evidence, the