Submitted on remand January 04, 2018.
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.
G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and
Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense
Services, fled the brief for appellant.
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy
Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney
General, fled the brief for respondent.
Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Shorr,
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
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.
Or. 882] SHORR, J.
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).
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.
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.
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 ...