also... the section that details that you are allowed to point a gun at someone under the correct situation is interesting.. lol

 

Yes, you are allowed to point your firearm at someone if it is warranted. It is called "constructive authority" in the police world and extends into the real world. Tread Lightly.

Here's the meat of the superior court's decision

 

We are satisfied, however, that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury with respect to an exception to the duty to retreat. Defendant contends that, in its instruction to the jury, the trial court should have explained not only that one has no duty to retreat from one's dwelling, but that a "dwelling" encompasses a doorway, threshold, porch or other similar appurtenance.

 

No retreat required in the home or attached appurenance. Superior court in state vs Martinez". Perfect Just relinking in the event I search my old posts: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19890113_0041569.nj.htm/qx

 

Great stuff!

 

It is clear that whether or not defendant was required to retreat in this situation was dependent, in part, upon whether the jury believed that defendant was in or at his dwelling house when he employed deadly force in self-protection. In failing to instruct the jury that a dwelling house includes "a porch or similar appurtenance" or that a defendant may "meet the assailant at the threshold of the home and prevent him from entering by any means," the trial court may have led the jury to believe that defendant had a duty to retreat and, therefore, his use of deadly force was not justifiable when, in fact, the jury could properly have concluded that no such duty to retreat existed.

 

Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a dwelling house includes a porch or similar appurtenance, or other language to that effect.

The officers were correct to Mirandize the defendant once they realized they were going to question him about a crime the he may have committed, because their questoning, at the station, has been found time and time again to be an inherently coercive situation where one may feel compelled to answer the police questions. Thus, a defendant needs to knowingly and intelligently waive his 5A right to remain silent before the evidence can be used in court. The Mirandizing was probably necessary to keep the confession from being suppressed.

I wasn't aware that he was at the PD when they were questioning him. Regardless, he wasn't in custody, therefore they weren't REQUIRED to Mirandize him. They certainly can, and there's nothing wrong with doing it several times and before it's needed....just that it's not necessary.

I wasn't aware that he was at the PD when they were questioning him. Regardless, he wasn't in custody, therefore they weren't REQUIRED to Mirandize him. They certainly can, and there's nothing wrong with doing it several times and before it's needed....just that it's not necessary.

 

When he was at the police station, he was in custody. He was read the Miranda rights before being placed into custody and then after being placed into custody.

 

After Patrolman Forker advised him of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted that he had stabbed Rivera with a screwdriver and had thrown the screwdriver into the alley. Patrolman Forker placed defendant under arrest. The police found the screwdriver in the street near a telephone pole on the opposite side of Hills Place.

 

Defendant was taken to Trenton Police Headquarters where he was again read his Miranda rights. Defendant signed a form acknowledging that he understood those rights, and issued a statement.