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. Schmidtke

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc

November 30, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review,
v.
KEITH ALLEN SCHMIDTKE, Petitioner on Review.

         On petition for review fled July 7, 2017; considered and under advisement on September 26, 2017. (CC 14FE0657, 14FE0922; CA A158927 (Control), A158928; [*]

          Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, fled the petition for review. Also on the petition was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Keith A. Schmidtke, pro se, fled the supplemental petition for review.

         No appearance contra.

         The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

         The supplemental pro se petition for review is denied.

          [362 Or. 204] Case Summary: In a criminal prosecution, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress but failed to address all of the evidence in its order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and defendant petitioned for review. This court allowed review, vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for consideration in light of State v. Boyd, 360 Or. 302, 380 P.3d 941 (2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and defendant petitioned for review. Held: when a trial court denies a motion to suppress but does not explicitly address all of the evidence sought to be suppressed, a defendant need not request a specific ruling on the remaining evidence to preserve his contentions for appeal.

         The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The supplemental pro se petition for review is denied.

          [362 Or. 205] PER CURIAM

         At issue in this case is whether, when a defendant files a motion to suppress all statements made during an encounter with police, and the trial court's ruling addresses some-but not all-of those statements, the defendant must again request suppression of the statements that the court failed to address to preserve the matter for appeal. We conclude that a defendant need not request suppression of the statements a second time.

         Defendant was identified as a suspect in a car break-in. Police officers contacted defendant's probation officer, who issued a detainer authorizing defendant's arrest. An officer spotted defendant and called him by name. The officer identified himself as a police officer and told defendant to keep his hands visible. Defendant complied. The officer told him that he was being detained pursuant to the probation officer's order and handcuffed him. The police officer made a number of statements to defendant, to which defendant responded with incriminating statements. The officer then patted down defendant, arrested him, and gave him Miranda warnings.

         The state charged defendant with, among other things, identity theft, first-degree theft, and second-degree escape. Defendant filed a single pre-trial suppression motion in which he sought to suppress all of the statements he made during his encounter with the officer, both before and after Miranda warnings were given, as well as some physical evidence. The trial court issued a written order in which it suppressed some physical evidence, denied suppression of other physical evidence, denied suppression of the -post-Miranda statements, and gave defendant leave to file a motion to controvert a search warrant based on the suppression ruling. The order, however, did not explicitly address defendant's motion as to the suppression of the pre-Miranda statements. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

         Before the Court of Appeals, the state conceded that defendant was in compelling circumstances before the officer administered Miranda warnings, but contended that defendant had not been interrogated. The Court of Appeals [362 Or. 206] affirmed without opinion. This court allowed review, vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, and remanded in light of our decision in State v. Boyd, 360 Or. 302, 380 P.3d 941 (2016). State v. Schmidtke, 360 Or. 568, 385 P.3d 78 (2016). The Court of Appeals then issued a per curiam opinion, explaining,

"[A]lthough defendant specifically sought at the suppression hearing to suppress his pie-Miranda statements, the trial court reserved its ruling on the motion. Later in a written order, the court addressed only 'Defendant's motion to suppress statements made by Defendant after being advised of his Miranda rights, ' which it denied. (Emphasis added.) The trial court never ruled on defendant's motion to suppress his pie-Miranda statements, and defendant never attempted to secure a ruling on that part of his motion. As a ...

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.