Call Now For Help


NJ Miranda Rule and Spontaneous Statements


by in Criminal Defense

It is well-settled that statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless preceded by Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). “Interrogation” in this context had been defined as express questioning or its functional equivalent. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). The test to determine whether a defendant has been the subject of the functional equivalent of interrogation is whether the police knew, or should have known, that their conduct was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the person. An “incriminating response” is any response – whether inculpatory or exculpatory – that the prosecution may seek to introduce at trial. State v. Ward, 240 N.J. Super. 412, 418 (App. Div. 1990).

However, If a criminal defendant has not been interrogated, and instead makes a spontaneous and voluntary statement, the statement is admissible against the defendant. Id. at 419. This is true provided that the statement was not the product of enticement, encouragement, solicitation or the non-verbal investigative techniques designed to elicit a response. Id. at 417.






*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.