Opinion ID: 2333091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Were the confessions admissible in evidence?

Text: The basic rule as to the admissibility of confessions has been written many times. The primary inquiry in determining its admissibility is whether or not it was voluntary. Whether it was voluntary depends upon the facts in each case. Its competency is primarily for the trial judge, while the weight to be given it is determined by the jury. The determination of the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal where there is sufficient evidence to support it. The adjudications so holding are abundant under our judicial system provided for by the Constitution of 1947, as well as prior thereto. Roesel v. State, 62 N.J.L. 216 ( E. & A. 1898); State v. Young, 67 N.J.L. 223 ( E. & A. 1902); State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137 ( Sup. Ct. 1904); State v. Foulds, 127 N.J.L. 336 ( E. & A. 1941); State v. Cole, 136 N.J.L. 606 ( E. & A. 1948), certiorari denied 334 U.S. 851, 68 S.Ct. 1503, 92 L.Ed. 1773, rehearing denied 334 U.S. 862, 68 S.Ct. 1519, 92 L.Ed. 1782; State v. Pierce, 4 N.J. 252 (1950); State v. Bunk, 4 N.J. 461 (1950), certiorari denied 340 U.S. 839, 71 S.Ct. 25, 95 L.Ed. 615; State v. Grillo, 11 N.J. 173 (1952), certiorari denied 345 U.S. 976, 73 S.Ct. 1123, 97 L.Ed. 1391; State v. Vaszorich, 13 N.J. 99 (1953), certiorari denied 346 U.S. 900, 74 S.Ct. 219, 98 L.Ed. 400; State v. Auld, 2 N.J. 426 (1949); State v. Cooper, 2 N.J. 540 (1949); State v. Cooper, 10 N.J. 532 (1952); State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203 (1953); State v. Walker, 15 N.J. 485 (1954); State v. Beard, 16 N.J. 50 (1954); State v. Tune, 17 N.J. 100 (1954), our latest decision embodying these principles being State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572 (1955). In the instant case the truth of the confessions is not in dispute. Not only are they factually accurate, but the record portrays the defendants endeavored on several occasions to enter pleas of guilty to the indictments returned against them, thus avoiding the imposition of the death penalty. The issue presented, rather, turns upon the single ground that the statements were not voluntarily given and the assertion that the State trespassed upon the doctrine of fundamental fairness. In this regard, there are submitted a number of federal cases: Haley v. State of Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948); Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801 (1949); Harris v. State of South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943); Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1954). We have also examined U.S., ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, 222 F. 2 d 698 (2 d Cir., decided May 11, 1955), which contains perhaps the most recent expression by a federal appellate court of the principles underlying the admissibility of confessions. Most of these and many other federal cases were considered, analyzed and commented upon at length in State v. Pierce, supra , where we noted the various sets of factual developments, when taken in their entirety, were found by the federal court to have created a state of coercion and duress sufficient to invalidate the resulting confessions. We concluded in State v. Pierce, supra, 4 N.J., at page 261: The fear that arises out of a consciousness of guilt and a dread of the legal penalty which probably will and ought to fall is not the kind that will invalidate an otherwise voluntary confession. In State v. Cooper, supra, 10 N.J., at page 552, we expressed it: The state of mind which renders such a statement involuntary and hence inadmissible is that induced by mistreatment, threats, promises, physical or mental abuse which deprives an otherwise rational mind of the exercise of its free will and powers of decision and discernment. It is not that mental condition which arises from an inner sense of wrongdoing and fear of its consequences. With these basic principles in mind, we turn to a detailed consideration of the circumstances surrounding the confessions which were received in evidence in the case sub judice.