Opinion ID: 2376602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was it error to have admitted defendant's statements into evidence?

Text: The two statements to which defendant objects were obtained (1) by Sergeant Louis Jasmine of the New Jersey State Police and (2) by Detective Black and Lieutenant Conn of the Kearny Police. Defendant argues that these statements should have been excluded because he was not effectively advised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. Since the trial commenced in February, 1966 before the decision in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2 d 694 (1966), he bases his claim to exclusion solely on Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 A S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2 d 977 (1964). See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed. 2 d 882 (1966). The State's and defendant's versions of what transpired at the time the statements were made, are diametrically opposed. However, we have fully reviewed and weighed all the evidence on the question of the admissibility of the statements and find that the trial court was correct in holding that the statements were voluntary. State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 549 (1960). Moreover, defendant did not request a lawyer and therefore cannot complain. State v. Ordog, 45 N.J. 347 (1965).