Oregon Appellate Court - April 30, 2014
by: Abassos and Samantha Robell • May 1, 2014 • no comments
262 Or App ___ (A147565) State v. Dalessio
Court ruled that trial court should apply the standard of Moore/Coen, stating that the court should assume that the “defendant's trial testimony is tainted by the admission of the unconstitutionally-obtained pretrial statements, it must be excluded unless the court determines that it did not refute, explain, or qualify the pretrial statements.” Here the defendant had a first trial where he testified, however, it was remanded due to mistrial. The question in this case was whether or not the defendant’s testimony at the first trial was admissible due to the unconstitutionality that his original statements were obtained by. Remanded for the court to decide whether or not the testimony was tainted due to the police officers’ actions.
262 Or App ___ (A155032) State v. Ruiz-Piza
A confession is involuntary if it is induced through fear calculated to put the defendant in a vulnerable state. Here, the officer stated at the hospital, that unless the Defendant confessed to shaking his daughter the defendant’s daughter would not receive proper medical attention, and that the defendant would be assumed to be an abuser. The question in this case is whether the willingness of the defendant to enter into the hospital private room with the police officers, as well as, his statement of shaking his daughter, were involuntary due to the calculated inducement of fear placed on the Defendant. Affirmed that the statements were given involuntary.
262 Or App ___ (A149843) State v. Davis
An inventory policy is defective if it does not contain restrictions on the scope of the inventory. Here, the Lane County Sheriff's Office inventory policy is defective because it authorizes the search of all “pocket property”. “The policy's terms do not purport to impose any sort of limitation--or even guidance--on when an officer may open a closed container as part of an inventory.” Reversed and Remanded.
262 Or App ___ (A152738) State v. Corkill
Vouching does not occur when a defendant is asked repeatedly whether or not police officers have lied in their testimony. Vouching evidence involves “one witness's testimony that he or she believes that another witness is or is not credible, which a party offers to bolster or undermine the veracity of that other witness.” Here, the prosecution was not offering the Defendant statements as evidence instead the prosecution was questioning the validity of the Defendant’s statements. Affirmed.
