State v. Johnson, 261 A.2d 662 (N.J. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Johnson, 261 A.2d 662 (N.J. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc.
La. · 1999 · confidence medium
Co., 108 N.J.Super. 405 , 261 A.2d 662, 666 (1970); Threats v. Derousselle, No. 93-1047 (La.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nation v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2×)
Okla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Co., 108 N.J.Super. 405 , 261 A.2d 662, 666 (declaring household exclusion void and imposing liability to policy limits, not the statutory minimum), cert. denied, 55 NJ. 595, 264 A.2d 68 (1970). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lonnie Johnson, Defendant-Respondent
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Feb 16, 1970.
261 A.2d 662
Mr. Hugh P. Francis, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney)., Mrs. Miriam N. Span, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Stanley O. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in the appellate court. 106 N. J. Super. 295, 299 (1969). We add that we see no basis in fact for the finding in the majority opinion that upon defendant’s response to the officer’s preliminary question, defendant’s “psychological defenses against full self-incrimination were down” (106 N. J. Super., at 298). Defendant, who testified, did not say he gave the written statement for that reason.' In fact, defendant denied receiving any warnings at all. The “taint” issue was thus posited entirely upon the officer’s testimony, and that testimony does not support a finding that the warnings were ineffective on the thesis that the defendant felt “the cat was already out of the bag.”

For reversal — Chief Justice Weiutraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hanemait — 6.

For affirmance — Hone.