Opinion ID: 1966606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Statements at the Apartment

Text: The circumstances at Tiffany's apartment, where the sisters made their initial statements to the police, present a closer question. The sisters first reported the robbery when Tiffany returned to the apartment after being forced to walk for several blocks with the assailants. Approximately five minutes after the sisters reported the robbery and fifteen to twenty minutes after the assailants left the apartment, Officer Minguela arrived on the scene and interviewed Tina and Tiffany. The sisters briefly recounted what had happened during the robbery, and Tiffany named defendant as one of the robbers. Because the sisters had an opportunity to deliberate, their statements to police at the apartment should not have been admitted at trial. During the time it took her to walk back to the apartment, Tiffany had, at least, several minutes to reflect on the robbery and who could have committed it. However, as we recognize in Branch, supra, today, the time lapse is not the most important consideration. Branch, supra, at 366, 865 A .2d 673, 2005 WL 221198, . Rather, the nature of the statement, including the nature of the utterance, determines its admissibility. Long, supra, 173 N.J. at 159, 801 A. 2d 221 (citation omitted). Here, the sisters' statements in response to police questioning constituted narrative[s] of a past occurrence and not statements exclamatory, and coincident with the happening of the robbery. Blackman v. W. Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co., 68 N.J.L. 1, 2, 52 A. 370 (Sup.Ct.1902). We have traditionally held that such statements are not sufficiently spontaneous to assure reliability, and we so hold today. For those reasons, we conclude that the trial court also erred in admitting those statements.