read State v Sims The failure of police to advise the defendant of the charges against him will result in a suppression of his statement despite Miranda In this appeal, the court determined as a matter of first impression that the Supreme Court's holdings in
State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003), and in
State v. Vincenty 237 N.J. 122 (2019), requiring that police inform a defendant subject to custodial interrogation of specific charges filed against him before he can waive his in Miranda rights, also applies to an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation.
The court also concluded that the trial court erred by admitting the victim's statement to police through a police officer's hearsay testimony at trial because defendant was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the victim's statement through cross examination at a pretrial hearing or before the jury, where at the pretrial hearing the victim could not recall ever giving the statement to police and he later refused to appear at trial to testify before the jury.
In a separate opinion concurring with the result but dissenting from the majority's extension of A.G.D. to custodial interrogations where neither a complaint warrant nor arrest warrant have been issued, a member of the panel expressed concern that the new rule announced in the majority opinion has the potential to introduce subjectivity, ambiguity, and uncertainty to the administration of Miranda warnings. A-2641-17T2 xxl