State v. Zucconi
| Decision Date | 06 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--27,A--27 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph F. ZUCCONI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Frank M. Lario, Jr., Camden, for appellant (Frank M. Lario, Camden, attorney, Joseph Pierce Lodge, Camden, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph A. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney, Joseph A. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel and on the brief, Stephen Skillman, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered
On December 4, 1964 defendant's automobile was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle and an occupant of defendant's vehicle was killed. The defendant was charged with careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4--97), and was convicted in municipal court and in a trial de novo by the county court on appeal. The central issue before the municipal court and the county court was whether the defendant or the decedent was operating defendant's automobile at the time of the accident. The State's proof on this issue consisted of admissions made by defendant to the State Trooper who investigated the accident. On December 16, 1964 the trooper interviewed the defendant at the hospital where he was being treated for injuries he received in the accident, and on December 20, 1964 the trooper again interviewed him at his home. The trooper testified that on both occasions the defendant stated that he had been driving the vehicle. At the interview of December 20 defendant, at home and in the presence of members of his family, signed a typewritten statement in which he admitted that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the collision. However, at the trial below the defendant testified that the deceased occupant, and not the defendant, was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision.
Defendant argues that his oral admission to the trooper and his signed statement were improperly admitted in evidence because he was not informed of his fifth and sixth amendment rights, citing Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The Appellate Division rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction, 92 N.J.Super. 380, 226 A.2d 16 (1967), and defendant appeals to this Court.
It is undisputed that defendant did not ask for counsel during his interviews with the State Trooper. Consequently, as we consistently have held, Escobedo does not apply. E.g., State v. Ordog, 45 N.J. 347, 361, 212 A.2d 370 (1965). Miranda also does not apply since the trial in the county court was held three months prior to June 13, 1966, the date for the application of that decision. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 734, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1781, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, 893 (1966); State v. Vigliano, 50 N.J. 51, 68, 232 A.2d 129 (1967). Further, Miranda does not apply to non-custodial interrogations; the rules of that case are applicable only 'when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities * * *.' 384 U.S. at p. 478, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Saunders
...State v. Salerno, 27 N.J. 289, 296, 142 A.2d 636 (1958); Ahto v. Weaver, 39 N.J. 418, 428, 189 A.2d 27 (1963); State v. Zucconi, 50 N.J. 361, 364, 235 A.2d 193 (1967); Donadio v. Cunningham, 58 N.J. 309, 325-26, 277 A.2d 375 (1971); Hildebrandt v. Bailey, 65 N.J.Super. 274, 285, 167 A.2d 65......
-
Cummings v. State
...was immaterial because the interrogation was non-custodial. 4 The defendant there was not under police restraint. In State v. Zucconi, 50 N.J. 361, 235 A.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a hospital room questioning of a person suspected of having driven a car involve......
-
State v. Muniz
...considered a 'criminal prosecution' ") (citing State v. Zucconi, 93 N.J.Super. 380, 384-87, 226 A.2d 16 (App.Div.1967), aff'd, 50 N.J. 361, 235 A.2d 193 (1967)). The Appellate Division acknowledged that the Code did not mandate the joinder of these respective offenses, but determined that t......
-
Errichetti v. Merlino
...issue...." State v. Salerno, 27 N.J. 289, 296, 142 A.2d 636 (1958); Ahto v. Weaver, 39 N.J. 418, 189 A.2d 27 (1963); State v. Zucconi, 50 N.J. 361, 235 A.2d 193 (1967). The next issue, one of fundamental significance, is whether the application of N.J.S.A. 19:3-25 to a member of the State S......