Oregon Appellate Court - April 30, 2014
by: Abassos and Samantha Robell • May 1, 2014 • no comments
Testimony is Presumptively Tainted by the Admission of an Unconstitutional Confession
A defendant's prior trial testimony is presumptively "tainted by the admission of unconstitutionally-obtained pretrial statements." Thus, such testimony is inadmissible at retrial unless the court determines that the defendant's prior testimony did not "refute, explain, or qualify the pretrial statements.” See State v Moore/Cohen, 349 Or 371 (2011). Here the defendant's first conviction was reversed due to a mistrial. At the second trial, the state wanted to use the testimony from the first trial, even while conceding that statements made to officers needed to be suppressed. Remanded for the court to decide whether or not the testimony was tainted due to the police officers’ actions. State v Dalessio, 262 Or App ___ (2014)
A Confession is Involuntary if Induced by Calculated Fear
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. State v Ruiz- Piza, 262 Or App ___ (2014).
An Inventory Policy Must Restrict the Scope
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 was defective because it authorized 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. State v Davis, 262 Or App ___ (2014).
262 Or App ___ (A152738) State v. Corkill
Vouching does not occur when a defendant is asked repeatedly, by the DA on cross-examination at trial, whether or not he is saying that police officers have lied in their testimony. Vouching 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's statements as evidence. Instead, the prosecution was questioning the validity of the Defendant’s statements. Affirmed. State v Corkill, 262 Or App ___ (2014)
