Oregon Appellate Ct - April 23, 2014
by: Abassos • April 23, 2014 • no comments
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough | *Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough | ||
*Coercion - A National Guard Recruiter is a "Public Servant" | *Coercion - A National Guard Recruiter is a "Public Servant" | ||
| − | * | + | *Miranda - An Invocation of Counsel Followed by Illegal Interrogation, a Long Break and a New Interrogation Initiated by Defendant |
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The term "public servant" in the coercion statute includes any government employee, including employees of the federal government, as well as anyone who provides a service rendered in the public interest. ORS 163.275. The court reaches this conclusion by using Websters, rejecting defendant's "elaborate" argument stemming from ORS 162.005. Here, defendant was a recruiter for the National Guard and, therefore, both a government employee and "an individual who provides a public service . . . because he assists members of the public." [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A148110.pdf State v Fox] | The term "public servant" in the coercion statute includes any government employee, including employees of the federal government, as well as anyone who provides a service rendered in the public interest. ORS 163.275. The court reaches this conclusion by using Websters, rejecting defendant's "elaborate" argument stemming from ORS 162.005. Here, defendant was a recruiter for the National Guard and, therefore, both a government employee and "an individual who provides a public service . . . because he assists members of the public." [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A148110.pdf State v Fox] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Miranda - An Invocation of Counsel Followed by Illegal Interrogation, a Long Break and a New Interrogation Initiated by Defendant''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Where defendant was unlawfully questioned after invoking his right to counsel, he was still capable of validly waiving his right to counsel by initiating further conversations with the police. The appropriate framework with which to analyze such a case is found in ''State v Acremant,'' 338 Or 302 (2005), not ''State v Hall.'' Here, defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his 5th amendment right to counsel where he did not make any incriminating statements in response to the unlawful police questions and later initiated further contact with detectives without prompting. Defendant validly waived his Article I, Section 12 rights because (1) defendant initiated contact after an extended break in questioning, (2) the detectives went out of their way to make sure defendant knew it was his decision and that he had the right to talk to an attorney, and (3) defendant confirmed that he understood his rights before making any incriminating statements. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A147220.pdf State v Doyle]. | ||
Revision as of 19:32, April 24, 2014
The summaries are still in the process of being written.
"I Wish You Were Dead" Is Not a Qualifying Contact for a Stalking Order
The statement "I wish you were dead" is more akin to an "impotent expression of anger or frustration" than the sort of unequivocal threat of imminent and serious violence required of a communication to qualify as one of the contacts required for a stalking protective order. Also, threats to call the police and DHS are not threats of violence at all, much less imminent and serious violence.
Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough
There was sufficient evidence that defendant's purpose was to forcibly compel the victim to touch his penis where:
- (1) Defendant took victim to a secluded room
- (2) Stepped in front of her and exposed his penis; and
- (3) "very aggressively" grabbed victim with enough force to leave bruises on her arm.
Thus, defendant's MJOA on attempted sex abuse was appropriately denied.
Coercion - A National Guard Recruiter is a "Public Servant"
The term "public servant" in the coercion statute includes any government employee, including employees of the federal government, as well as anyone who provides a service rendered in the public interest. ORS 163.275. The court reaches this conclusion by using Websters, rejecting defendant's "elaborate" argument stemming from ORS 162.005. Here, defendant was a recruiter for the National Guard and, therefore, both a government employee and "an individual who provides a public service . . . because he assists members of the public." State v Fox
Miranda - An Invocation of Counsel Followed by Illegal Interrogation, a Long Break and a New Interrogation Initiated by Defendant
Where defendant was unlawfully questioned after invoking his right to counsel, he was still capable of validly waiving his right to counsel by initiating further conversations with the police. The appropriate framework with which to analyze such a case is found in State v Acremant, 338 Or 302 (2005), not State v Hall. Here, defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his 5th amendment right to counsel where he did not make any incriminating statements in response to the unlawful police questions and later initiated further contact with detectives without prompting. Defendant validly waived his Article I, Section 12 rights because (1) defendant initiated contact after an extended break in questioning, (2) the detectives went out of their way to make sure defendant knew it was his decision and that he had the right to talk to an attorney, and (3) defendant confirmed that he understood his rights before making any incriminating statements. State v Doyle.
