A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - Sept 7, 2017

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Msell@mpdlaw.com • September 21, 2017 • no comments

Line 28: Line 28:
 
'''Miranda Right to Counsel – Equivocal Invocation of Right to Counsel'''
 
'''Miranda Right to Counsel – Equivocal Invocation of Right to Counsel'''
  
'''Preservation - Defendant Sufficiently Preserved Argument'''
+
'''Preservation - Defendant Sufficiently Preserved Argument'''
  
 
For the purposes of invoking the right to counsel, a defendant asking, “Where is the lawyer?” in response to Miranda Warnings is an equivocal invocation of his right to counsel that needs further clarification by police.  Here, following defendant’s arrest for murder constituting domestic violence, police conducted a custodial interview prior to arraignment. In response to the Miranda Warnings, defendant asked “where is the lawyer?” and police responded by asking defendant if he had retained a lawyer. Defendant said he had not and could not afford a lawyer. Police then told defendant that he would be appointed a lawyer at his arraignment. They then asked whether defendant understood his rights and would be willing to speak with them, and defendant said yes.  
 
For the purposes of invoking the right to counsel, a defendant asking, “Where is the lawyer?” in response to Miranda Warnings is an equivocal invocation of his right to counsel that needs further clarification by police.  Here, following defendant’s arrest for murder constituting domestic violence, police conducted a custodial interview prior to arraignment. In response to the Miranda Warnings, defendant asked “where is the lawyer?” and police responded by asking defendant if he had retained a lawyer. Defendant said he had not and could not afford a lawyer. Police then told defendant that he would be appointed a lawyer at his arraignment. They then asked whether defendant understood his rights and would be willing to speak with them, and defendant said yes.  

Revision as of 20:28, September 22, 2017

  • CRIMES/CONTEMPT

Restraining Orders – “Interfering” with Petitioner – Insufficient Evidence of Interference

Defendant did not violate a restraining order by “interfering” with the petitioner when he emailed her employer and accused her of theft and fraud. “Interference” does not include “taking part in the concerns of others” and here, defendant did not have any direct physical or verbal contact with petitioner.

State v. Balero, 287 Or App 678 (2017) (Duncan, J.)

  • CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA

Miranda Right to Counsel – Equivocal Invocation of Right to Counsel

Preservation - Defendant Sufficiently Preserved Argument

For the purposes of invoking the right to counsel, a defendant asking, “Where is the lawyer?” in response to Miranda Warnings is an equivocal invocation of his right to counsel that needs further clarification by police. Here, following defendant’s arrest for murder constituting domestic violence, police conducted a custodial interview prior to arraignment. In response to the Miranda Warnings, defendant asked “where is the lawyer?” and police responded by asking defendant if he had retained a lawyer. Defendant said he had not and could not afford a lawyer. Police then told defendant that he would be appointed a lawyer at his arraignment. They then asked whether defendant understood his rights and would be willing to speak with them, and defendant said yes.

On appeal, the state argued that defendant failed to preserve his claim that defendant equivocally invoked his right to counsel because he failed to make a closing argument even though defendant clearly addressed the issue during cross. The court rejects the state’s preservation argument because it was apparent that all understood the issue was whether defendant’s Miranda right to counsel was violated, and the state had the burden of proving that. As to the merits, the court agrees with defendant that his statement was an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel, because a reasonable officer would have understood it as an equivocal request for counsel in light of the context in which it was made – immediately after Miranda rights were read and the officer asked whether defendant understood them. Police also failed to clarify the invocation because police, at most, clarified that defendant had the right to a lawyer at arraignment under Article I, section 11, and may have actually misled defendant into believing he did not have a right to counsel during interrogation. And, defendant did not voluntarily cut-off any opportunity for police to ask clarifying questions by spontaneously speaking to the officers about the offense, instead he affirmatively responded to the officer’s questions about continuing the interview.

State v. Sanelle, 287 Or App 611 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)


EVIDENCE

  • Self-Incrimination – Error to Introduce Defendant’s Invocation at Trial

PCR/HABEAS CORPUS

  • Post-Conviction Relief – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Guilty Pleas

PER CURIAMS

  • Appeal and Review – Harmless Error
  • Fines and Fees – "Mandatory State Amt"

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

  • Search and Seizure – Search Warrants – Warrant for Electronic Devices was Overbroad
  • Search and Seizure – Probable Cause – Traffic Violations – Impeding Traffic


State v. Villar, 287 Or App 656 (2017) (Lagesen, J.) State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661 (2017) (Garrett, J.) State v. Carson, 287 Or App 631 (2017) (Egan, J.) Owen v. Taylor, 287 Or App 639 (2017) (Lagesen, J.) State v. McLean, 287 Or App 686 (2017) (per curiam) (Hadlock, C.J., concurring) State v. Triplett, 287 Or App 694 (2017) (per curiam)