Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Sims

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sims

    250 N.J. 189 (N.J. 2022)   Cited 60 times
    Holding sufficient credible evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding, which was made after the court had conducted a Rule 104 hearing, that the totality of the circumstances warranted the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police

    We granted the State's petition for certification, in which it challenged the Appellate Division's holding regarding the trial court's admission of P.V.’s testimony at the Wade/ Henderson hearing, as well as its decision regarding defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights. 246 N.J. 146, 249 A.3d 187 (2021). We also granted the motions of the Attorney General, the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey to appear as amici curiae.

  2. State v. Delvalle

    No. A-5586-17 (App. Div. Mar. 3, 2022)

    He further contends the factual scenario here is similar to that in State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019), decided after the trial court rendered its decision in this matter. After the briefs were filed, defendant filed a supplemental brief, pursuant to Rule 2:6-11(d), citing the majority's recent opinion in State v. Sims, 466 N.J.Super. 346 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 246 N.J. 146 (2021), to further support his belated argument.

  3. State v. Kilpatrick

    No. A-5093-18 (App. Div. Feb. 16, 2022)

    Our review of denial of a motion to suppress a statement following an evidentiary hearing is limited. In reviewing a trial judge's determination on a motion to suppress a statement, we similarly defer to the trial judge's factual findings, State v. Sims, 466 N.J.Super. 346, 362 (App. Div. 2021), certif. granted, 246 N.J. 146 (2021) (citing Tillery, 238 N.J. at 314), "because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the feel of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Id. at 362-63 (quoting S.S., 229 N.J. at 374).

  4. State v. Diaz

    470 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 2022)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the State failed to prove a knowing and voluntary waiver beyond a reasonable doubt in view of an affirmative misleading interrogation strategy to deliberately withhold information about the uncharged crime defendant was facing, noting "[w]e have little tolerance for the form of deception that occurred in this case"

    Div.), certif. granted, 246 N.J. 146, 249 A.3d 187 (2021). On July 20, 2021, the trial court granted the motion for reconsideration and suppressed defendant's statements made during the stationhouse interrogation.

  5. State v. Cross

    No. A-3417-18 (App. Div. Jan. 19, 2022)

    Defendant argues such a disclosure was constitutionally required to enable him to "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently" decide whether to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as established in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003); State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019); and State v. Sims, 466 N.J.Super. 346 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 246 N.J. 146 (2021). For these reasons, he argues the first incriminating statement he made to the officers should have been suppressed and the failure to do so constituted harmful error.