Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 25, 2015

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT DARNELL BOYD, Defendant-Appellant

Argued and Submitted May 30, 2014.

Page 627

Lane County Circuit Court 201026332. Lauren S. Holland, Judge.

Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Attorney-in-Charge, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Mary H. Williams, Deputy Attorney General.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.

OPINION

Page 628

[270 Or.App. 43] EGAN, J.

Defendant, who was convicted of murder, assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements that he made both before and after his arrest. Defendant raises several arguments--in which he requests plain error review of an unpreserved argument that he received inadequate Miranda warnings--which we have considered and reject without written discussion. We write to discuss defendant's remaining contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain statements that he made after he had invoked his right to counsel, thus violating Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution[1] and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2] The trial court concluded that defendant reinitiated communication with an officer at the jail. We affirm.

On review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we are bound by the trial court's findings of historical facts that are supported by evidence in the record. State v. Holdorf, 355 Or. 812, 814, 333 P.3d 982 (2014). If the trial court fails to make specific findings, we presume that the trial court found facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion. Id. We must decide whether the trial court correctly applied the law to those historical facts. Id. With that standard in mind, we turn to the facts.

Defendant was transported to the police station on suspicion of murdering his girlfriend. After arriving at the police station, Officer Conrad removed defendant's handcuffs and asked defendant to remove his boots, which had blood on them. Upon request, defendant removed his boots and jacket. Detective Martin came in and photographed defendant's hand, which was injured, and sought to swab defendant's hand injury. Defendant took the swab from Martin, swabbed the injury, but refused to give it back to Martin. When Martin requested that defendant return the swab, [270 Or.App. 44] defendant replied, " You ain't getting my DNA without my attorney." Defendant further explained his refusal to give the swab back, stating that he did not trust the police and government, that he did not know why he was at the police station, and asked that the police not talk to him until he had a lawyer.

At that point, Detective Myers arrested defendant for homicide, effectively ending the interview. Defendant continued talking to the police while they processed his arrest, saying that the victim was not dead, but the officers and detectives did not ask him any further questions while he was being processed. Those interactions occurred around 4:00 a.m.

Approximately seven hours later, Sergeant Lewis went to defendant's cell, after learning that defendant had been erroneously placed by other jail staff in a cell with a toilet and running water. Concerned about the potential destruction of evidence, Lewis asked defendant to show him the fronts and backs of his hands to determine whether ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.