midpage

State v. FlowerState v. Flower

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Feb 18, 1988
Reporters:
,
Before:
Michels, Shebell, Gaynor (per curiam)

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Law Division that suppressed the statements of defendant Frank A. Flower to investigators from the Somerset County Prosecutor‘s Office and to a caseworker from the Division of Youth and Family Services is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Imbriani in his written opinion of April 30, 1987, which is reported as State v. Flower, 224 N.J. Super. 208 (Law Div. 1987). The trial court‘s decision that Miranda applied where, as here, the Division of Youth and Family Services caseworker conducted a custodial interview of defendant concerning charges of aggravated sexual assault is consistent with the principles discussed in our decision filed today in State v. Helewa, 223 N.J. Super. 40 (App.Div. 1988).

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Flower
Court Name: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Date Published: Feb 18, 1988
Citations: 539 A.2d 1223; 224 N.J. Super. 90
Court Abbreviation: N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
Log In