State v. Dorf

The defendant appealed from her conviction for first-degree strict liability for drug-induced death. She argued the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress statements she gave to police during two stationhouse interrogations. The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled the defendant’s first statement was voluntarily made and admissible. However, the Court held that the trial court should have suppressed the defendant’s second statement. The Court found that the defendant’s Miranda rights were violated during the second interrogation when a detective told her if she did not do anything wrong, she did not need an attorney.

Dorff