Court Opinion

ID: 9695878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:48.399047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.044831
License: Public Domain

Pashman, J.
(Concurring in result only). The majority reverses the conviction of Pace on the grounds that the statements made to his parole officer should have been excluded because the parole officer failed to give him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). It also holds that the exception to this rule created by Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 91 S. Ct. 643, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1971), allowing the use for purposes of impeachment of statements taken from a defendant in violation of Miranda, cf. Oregon v. Hass, - U. S. *229-, 95 S. Ct. 1215, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1975), does not apply here because defendant did not testify in his own behalf. With these holdings I am in full agreement. The majority opinion, though, goes on to imply approval of the Harris exception. The desirability of adopting Harris as a matter of state law need not be considered in this case, and I would not do so. My views on this issue are fully set out in my dissent to State v. Miller, 67 N. J. 229 (1975), also decided today.
Pashman, J., concurring in result.
For reversal in part and affirmance in part — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivah, Pashman and Clifford and Judge Collester — 7.
Opposed — None.