Oregon Appellate Ct - July 29, 2015
by: Sean McGuire and Abassos • July 29, 2015 • no comments
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | * | + | * Statements Obtained Without a Valid Miranda Warning and Waiver Can Not Be Used To Impeach - State v Mills Overruled |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''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 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=state+v+mills+1985&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&case=2617140007357772784&scilh=0 State v. Mills]. This holding results from the confluence of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: | 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 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=state+v+mills+1985&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&case=2617140007357772784&scilh=0 State v. Mills]. This holding results from the confluence of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151989.pdf State v. Finonen], 272 Or.App. 589 (2015). | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151989.pdf State v. Finonen], 272 Or.App. 589 (2015). | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2015-07-29 15:12:52 -0700 | Sean McGuire }} | ||
{{wl-publish: 2015-07-29 15:12:52 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | {{wl-publish: 2015-07-29 15:12:52 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:15, July 30, 2015
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).
