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. Schrepfer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 25, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JASON PAUL SCHREPFER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted November 15, 2016

         Lane County Circuit Court 201425077; Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Judge.

          Stephanie J. Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the opening brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services. Jason Paul Schrepfer fled the supplemental brief pro se.

          Peenesh H. Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and James, Judge. [*]

         [288 Or. 430] Case Summary:

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405. At issue on appeal is whether defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and, if so, whether the arresting officer unconstitutionally continued to question him in violation of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress statements made following his invocation and ruled that defendant reinitiated engagement with the officer after defendant said, "I'm done talking." Defendant assigns error to that ruling.
Held: Defendant's invocation was unequivocal and the officer improperly continued to interrogate defendant following that invocation. Further, the encounter was ongoing such that defendant's later statements cannot be considered unprompted, and thus defendant did not voluntarily waive his previously invoked right against self-incrimination.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [288 Or. 431] JAMES, J.

         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405. On appeal he raises three assignments of error, and defendant supplements with a single pro se assignment of error. We reject all of those assignments without discussion save the first, where defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made following his invocation of the right against compelled self-incrimination under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.[1] At issue on appeal is whether defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and, if so, whether the arresting officer unconstitutionally continued to question him in violation of Article I, section 12. We conclude that defendant's invocation was unequivocal and that the officer improperly continued to interrogate defendant following that invocation. Further, we conclude that the encounter was ongoing such that defendant's later statements cannot be considered unprompted, and thus defendant did not voluntarily waive his previously invoked right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

         We review for legal error and determine, as a matter of law, whether defendant's statement was an unequivocal invocation of his derivative right to remain silent. State v. Nichols, 361 Or. 101, 106, 390 P.3d 1001 (2017); State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or. 600, 609, 341 P.3d 714 (2014); State v. Sanelle, 287 Or.App. 611, 613, __ P.3d __ (2017). We are bound by the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by evidence in the record. Avila-Nava, 356 Or at 609 (referencing State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 481, 123 P.3d 251 (2005)). We state the facts in accordance with that standard.

         Police officers were dispatched to a department store parking lot after two women were observed leaving the department store with merchandise they had not paid for. Two loss-prevention officers and a mall security guard attempted to stop the women and retrieve the merchandise [288 Or. 432] when defendant interfered in the altercation. The dispatched police officers located defendant driving in the mall parking lot area and pulled him over.

         The officers removed defendant from his vehicle, placed him in handcuffs, read him Miranda warnings, and placed him in the back of Officer Magnus's patrol car. Magnus asked defendant a series of basic questions to which defendant replied.

         Magnus then left defendant in the patrol car while he and other officers spoke outside of the patrol cars regarding the incident and who had which person in custody, who would write up which reports, and who would book which pieces of evidence. When Magnus returned to his patrol car, defendant asked Magnus to retrieve his prescription glasses from his vehicle before it was impounded. Magnus eventually found defendant's glasses and the two drove off toward the jail. While driving, Magnus had the following exchange with defendant:

"[MAGNUS]: So you drove the car down from Albany?
" [MAGNUS]: How long have you had the car? "[DEFENDANT]: Uh. I don't know. It's not even mine. I just borrowed it.
"[MAGNUS]: I know. How long ago did you borrow it?
"[DEFENDANT]: I don't know. " [MAGNUS]: An hour ago? A week ago? A year ago? I mean-
"[DEFENDANT]: I'm done talking. "[MAGNUS]: Do we need to call somebody and let them knowthat your ...

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.