State ex rel. A.W., 212 N.J. 114

A thirteen-year-old AW’s interrogation occurred at the Union County Child Advocacy Center after KP (age five) disclosed sexual acts involving AW and cousin J.
AW’s father accompanied AW; initial questioning in Spanish; AW signed Miranda waiver with father present.
Detective Lopez initially read a Spanish Miranda waiver; AW later spoke in English during the interview.
AW requested his father leave to speak privately; father waiver was obtained and he left the room.
During the interview, the detective made comments about the father and discussed therapy and non-jail outcomes; AW eventually confessed.
Trial court and appellate courts found the confession voluntary under Presha and related precedent; this Court granted certification and allowed amicus participation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AW’s father’s absence was properly deemed truly unavailable or unwilling.	A.W.	A.W. argues absence was coerced by detective tactics.	Yes; absence satisfied Presha criteria and allowed interrogation without the parent.
Whether the interrogation techniques violated due process and overbore AW’s will.	A.W. asserts Reid techniques are coercive for juveniles.	State argues techniques complied with due process and were non-coercive overall.	No: totality of circumstances shows no overborement.
Whether the detective’s Miranda warnings were effectively undermined by statements that AW “had to talk.”	A.W. asserts warnings were contradicted by later prompts to speak.	State contends warnings remained intact and AW understood rights.	No; warnings remained effective per totality, with proper cautionary instructions.
Whether removal of AW’s father from the room was improper or improperly pressured AW.	A.W. claims subtle pressure to leave; violated Presha/Q.N.	State contends removal was voluntary and initiated by AW with informed waiver.	No; removal complied with controlling standards and AW voluntarily sought private discussion.

State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000) (established framework for voluntariness of juvenile confessions; heightened protection for under-14 without a truly unavailable/unwilling parent)
State ex rel. Q.N., 179 N.J. 165 (2004) (defined unwillingness vs. true unavailability in absence of parent; cautioned about leaving to parent’s initiative)
S.H., 61 N.J. 108 (1972) (early protective rule: interview should occur with parent presence when possible)
State ex rel. AS., 203 N.J. 131 (2010) (parent must act in juvenile’s best interests; mere presence insufficient; monitoring rights clarified)