Oregon Appellate Ct - July 29, 2015

by: Sean McGuire and Abassos • July 29, 2015 • no comments

Statements Obtained Without a Valid Miranda Warning and Waiver Can Not Be Used To Impeach - State v Mills Overruled

Statements obtained in violation of Article I, Section 12, may not be used to impeach a defendant’s trial testimony, even where no Miranda warnings were given and no request for a lawyer was made. The court expressly overrules State v. Mills. This holding results from the confluence of two Oregon Supreme Court cases:

• First, under State v. Isom, evidence of statements a defendant makes to officers after the officers deliver Miranda warnings but ignore the defendant’s request for counsel are inadmissible and may not be used to impeach.
• Second, under State v. Vondehn, there is no distinction between “actually coerced” and merely “unwarned” statements; i.e., statements obtained after ignoring an express invocation of the right to counsel, and statements obtained without giving Miranda warnings, are identical under evidence law.

Taken together, the Court of Appeals reasons, these cases stand for the proposition that statements a defendant makes without invoking the right to counsel and where no valid Miranda warnings were given are not admissible and may not be used for impeachment purposes. Reversed and remanded. State v. Finonen, 272 Or.App. 589 (2015).