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

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 21, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEITH ALLEN SCHMIDTKE, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted on remand January 04, 2018.

          On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, Deschutes County Circuit Court 14FE0657, 14FE0922 State v. Schmidtke, 362 Or. 203, 406 P.3d 59 (2017). Walter Randolph Miller, Jr., Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary

         Defendant appeals two judgments convicting him of identity theft, ORS 165.800, theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055, and escape in the second degree, ORS 162.155. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements that he made to an officer while being detained. The officer detained defendant based on the officer's belief that defendant was involved in a theft. Prior to giving defendant Miranda warnings, the officer told defendant that "he was being investigated in regard to some thefts" and that "he had been observed on video in the area of the crime and putting items into [a] storage unit." Defendant made incriminating statements in response. On appeal, defendant argues that the officer's statements constituted custodial interrogation, and his statements in response should have been suppressed. Held: The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his pre-Miranda statements. Although the officer did not interrogate defendant when he informed

          [290 Or. 881] defendant of the reasons for his detention, the officer did interrogate defendant when he confronted defendant with the evidence against him based both on the substance of the officer's statement and the manner in which it was made.

         Reversed and remanded.

          [290 Or. 882] SHORR, J.

         This case is before us for the third time, on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to consider whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements that he made before he was given Miranda warnings in violation of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. We are asked to consider this case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Boyd, 360 Or. 302, 380 P.3d 941 (2016).

         At trial, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of identity theft, ORS 165.800, one count of theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055, and one count of escape in the second degree, ORS 162.155, after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The conditional guilty plea to all three charges was subject to defendant's right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. In a consolidated case, defendant now appeals the two judgments convicting him of those crimes. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress and, accordingly, reverse and remand.

         We review the denial of a motion to suppress for legal error and are bound by the trial court's express factual findings if evidence in the record supports them. State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 74-75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993). We state the following facts consistently with that standard.

         Sergeant Majetich of the Redmond Police Department was dispatched to a report of a car break-in in the back parking lot of a Redmond hotel. Upon arrival, Majetich contacted the victims and immediately began searching the area for the stolen property. During that search, Majetich noticed that there were two gray storage totes and a compound bow inside a fenced portion of a storage facility just north of the location of the vehicle break-in. Based on the ...


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.