State v. Moe, A--28
| Decision Date | 20 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--28,A--28 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Martines MOE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Richard S. Rebeck, Woodbridge, for defendant-appellant.
David J. Monyek, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Edward J. Dolan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney, Christopher R. Wood, Legal Asst., of counsel and on the brief).
On January 10, 1966, defendant Martines Moe, along with his wife Barbara Moe and one Daniel Buttcher, pleaded not guilty to indictments charging them with the murder of Barbara Moe's father. Prior to the indictments all defendants had given incriminating statements to the police. On April 18, 1966, the defendants requested permission to withdraw their earlier pleas and enter pleas of non vult. The court granted the requests and set June 6 for the sentencing of the three defendants. Barbara Moe and Buttcher were sentenced on that date and are now serving prison terms. Sentencing in Martines Moe's case was adjourned.
On June 13, 1966, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) was announced. Thereafter, Martines Moe, who had not yet been sentenced, moved to withdraw his plea of non vult in order to take advantage of the rules regarding confessions formulated in Miranda. The basis for this motion was that the plea was entered in reliance on Pre-Miranda law and that, because Moe's counsel did not anticipate the broad exclusionary rules of Miranda, the plea was based on erroneous legal advice. Moe's motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that the plea of non vult was entered before the effective date of Miranda, June 13, 1966, and therefore defendant had no rights under that case, citing Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). On July 11, 1966, Moe was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals to this Court. R.R. 1:2--1(c).
The only ground urged by Moe as a reason for withdrawing his plea of non vult is that he would not have so pleaded but would have gone to trial and challenged the admissibility of his confession under Miranda had he known how that case would be decided.
We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Moe had no right to withdraw his plea of non vult. Miranda created no new rights for a defendant whose guilt had been established before the date of that decision by his voluntary plea of non vult. See State v. Pometti, 12 N.J. 446, pp. 452--453, 97 A.2d 399 (1953). The reasoning of Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, which holds that Miranda does not apply where guilt has been established by a trial before June 13, 1966, is equally applicable where guilt has been established by a plea entered before that date.
We further conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying Moe's motion for a change of plea. See State v. Herman, 47 N.J. 73, 219 A.2d 413 (1966); State v. Deutsch, 34 N.J. 190, 168 A.2d 12 (1961); R.R. 3:7--10. The record clearly discloses that the defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kramer
...v. Daniels, 38 N.J. 242, 183 A.2d 648 (1962), certiorari denied 374 U.S. 837, 83 S.Ct. 1885, 10 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1962); State v. Moe, 50 N.J. 386, 235 A.2d 678 (1967). The court was not impressed with the truth of his testimony that he had relied upon any promise made by counsel in entering hi......
- State v. Baird