Confessions and admissions
- corroboration
- defendant’s conduct in relation to declaration or act of another
Source:
Section 136.425 — Confessions and admissions; corroboration; defendant’s conduct in relation to declaration or act of another, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors136.html.
See also annotations under ORS 136.540 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
In general
While the Miranda warning given at the beginning of the interrogation was incomplete in that it did not inform the defendant that a lawyer would be provided for him if he were without funds, he had been given two complete warnings within a relatively short time of the interrogation so that repeated warnings, while desirable, were not absolutely necessary. State v. Garrison, 16 Or App 588, 519 P2d 1295 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Substance, rather than form, is the controlling element as to question whether the Miranda warnings were correctly given. State v. Bopp, 16 Or App 604, 519 P2d 1277 (1974)
In laying the foundation for introduction of a confession, the state may not offer evidence of the fact, results or details of a previous polygraph examination; but if, when the confession is offered in evidence, the defendant objects on grounds that it was not voluntary because of a preceding polygraph examination, the state may then offer in evidence both the fact that the examination was given and such details thereof, including evidence which may reveal the results thereof, which may be relevant to voluntariness of the confession. State v. Green, 271 Or 153, 531 P2d 245 (1975)
“Confession” for purpose of this section is statement made after commission of alleged crime for purpose of acknowledging that speaker is guilty of some criminal offense. State v. Manzella, 306 Or 303, 759 P2d 1078 (1988)
Admissibility
Volunteered statements not the result of any questioning or inducement are admissible. State v. Myers, 6 Or App 219, 487 P2d 663 (1971)
When the undisputed evidence is that a person of normal intelligence and understanding admits receiving and understanding the requisite advice and concedes that all statements made thereafter were completely voluntary, those statements are admissible. State v. Myers, 6 Or App 219, 487 P2d 663 (1971)
Custodial interrogation is not limited to questioning within the confines of the police station. State v. Myers, 6 Or App 219, 487 P2d 663 (1971)
A confession is not rendered inadmissible because given after a polygraph examination, if it is shown to have been given freely and voluntarily; but the examination may be administered in a manner constituting physical or psychological coercion, thereby rendering the confession involuntary. State v. Green, 271 Or 153, 531 P2d 245 (1975); State v. Clifton, 271 Or 177, 531 P2d 256 (1975)
Incriminating admissions, made by defendant to examiner during pretest interview prior to polygraph examination, were inadmissible where court order granting polygraph examination stipulated that results would be provided only to defense counsel and defendant reasonably believed that statements made during such examination would be secret and would be disclosed only to his attorneys. State v. Thompson, 30 Or App 379, 567 P2d 132 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant confessed after officer explained he could either take defendant into custody or issue citation, but before officer suggested charge may be reduced to misdemeanor, confession was not coerced or given in exchange for promise of leniency. State v. Landers, 101 Or App 293, 790 P2d 1161 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant’s confessions of prior crimes were highly relevant to jury’s consideration of questions under ORS 163.150, confessions, even if uncorroborated, were properly admitted during penalty phase of trial. State v. Montez, 309 Or 564, 789 P2d 1352 (1990)
If promise of leniency does not relate to charge that is subject of defendant’s response, voluntariness of response depends on whether defendant understood and reasonably relied on promise. State v. Goree, 151 Or App 621, 950 P2d 919 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Limitation on evidence of confession applies to confession induced by promise of leniency. State v. Powell, 242 Or App 645, 256 P3d 185 (2011), aff’d 352 Or 210, 282 P3d 845 (2012)
Preliminary determination of admissibility
Violation of statutes concerning handling of juveniles and presence or absence of their parents are not determinative, but are factors to be considered, in determining whether juvenile’s confession is voluntary. State v. Raiford, 7 Or App 202, 490 P2d 206 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence relevant to voluntariness of confession should be heard by court in absence of the jury. State v. Blackford, 16 Or App 217, 517 P2d 1196 (1974)
The defendant’s answers given during the custodial interrogation without the Miranda warning were not admissible. State v. Gill, 24 Or App 541, 546 P2d 786 (1976)
Where defendant made both equivocal and affirmative statements in reference to videotape relating events of alleged crime and only equivocal statements were made in response to particular statements on videotape, trial court properly ruled videotape and defendants responses to it inadmissible under this section. State v. Haynes, 49 Or App 89, 619 P2d 889 (1980)
Involuntary confessions
Although the defendant was removed in place from his original interrogation and Miranda warnings were then given by officers who lacked knowledge of defendant’s previously denied request for an attorney, a time interval of only six hours between his original incriminating remarks and the questioning by the officers was insufficient to dissipate the effect of the tainted admissions made during the original interrogation. State v. Garrison, 16 Or App 588, 519 P2d 1295 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Once the request for an attorney is made it is the duty of the officer to immediately discontinue the questioning, and continued questioning by the officer is in violation of the Miranda exclusionary rule so that statements made thereafter must be suppressed. State v. Garrison, 16 Or App 588, 519 P2d 1295 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Prohibition against introduction of involuntary confession applies to confession induced by private party. State v. Powell, 242 Or App 645, 256 P3d 185 (2011), aff’d 352 Or 210, 282 P3d 845 (2012)
Defendant’s confession was involuntary when it followed officer’s ultimatum that, unless defendant confessed, defendant would go to jail and might be unable to recover defendant’s car. State v. Center, 314 Or App 813, 499 P3d 63 (2021)
Confessions not involuntary
Officers did not coerce defendant’s turning over contraband to them nor his incriminating statement where officers threatened what would have been an authorized arrest of his companion and defendant chose to show them the contraband in the hope or belief that they would not arrest the companion. State v. Bopp, 16 Or App 604, 519 P2d 1277 (1974)
Administration of a polygraph examination did not render a later confession involuntary. State v. Clifton, 271 Or 177, 531 P2d 256 (1975)
The officer’s statements to defendant could be distilled into a mere admonition to tell the truth and did not constitute coercion. State v. Rollwage, 21 Or App 48, 533 P2d 831 (1975)
Where police officers’ comments about releasing defendant into hostile environment and references to threats to defendant by parties to crime or by members of the community were isolated comments during lengthy investigation, defendant’s statements were not coerced. State v. Foster, 303 Or 518, 739 P2d 1032 (1987)
Where confession to a crime is elicited by promise of immunity with respect to other crimes, confession is not considered involuntary as matter of law. State v. Aguilar, 133 Or App 304, 891 P2d 668 (1995)
Declaration or act of another
This section clearly requires the exclusion of evidence of an accusation by an accomplice made in the presence of police and the defendant where the defendant simply stands silent when the accusation is made. State v. Van Hooser, 11 Or App 146, 501 P2d 78 (1972), aff’d 266 Or 19, 511 P2d 359 (1973)
Corroboration
Corroboration of confession need only establish occurrence of crime, not that crime was committed by defendant. State v. Shoemaker, 8 Or App 402, 495 P2d 43 (1972)
Circumstances that defendant was intoxicated, that defendant’s automobile had flat tire, and that tracks of vehicle in snow indicated that vehicle had proceeded from public highway onto private lawn, were sufficient corroboration to permit admission of defendant’s statement that he had driven vehicle onto lawn. State v. Smith, 31 Or App 321, 570 P2d 409 (1977)
State failed to corroborate confession of attempted arson with evidence showing that on day following attempted arson house in question burned; evidence of second day’s burning would tend to prove defendant engaged in continuing course of conduct, but it did not provide independent corroborative evidence of alleged attempted arson of previous day. State v. Swearengin, 32 Or App 349, 573 P2d 362 (1978)
In prosecution for driving under influence of intoxicants, where defendant admitted he had been driving, fact that he was registered owner of truck and that he raised no objection to officer’s assumption that he was driver constituted sufficient circumstantial corroboration of his admissions. State v. Campbell, 44 Or App 3, 604 P2d 1266 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
“Some proof” means that there is enough evidence from which jury may draw inference that tends to establish or prove that a crime has been committed. State v. Lerch, 296 Or 377, 677 P2d 678 (1984); State v. Anderson, 103 Or App 436, 797 P2d 1072 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Hessel, 117 Or App 113, 844 P2d 209 (1992), Sup Ct review denied; State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Taylor, 119 Or App 276, 850 P2d 390 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s unexplained possession of large amount of money soon after killing is sufficient circumstantial evidence under this section to corroborate confession of murder for hire. State v. Oslund, 71 Or App 701, 693 P2d 1354 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant volunteered information about automobile accident, stated that he had been driving and that he was driving in violation of restrictions placed on his driver license, provided his driver license number, made statement about cause of accident and statements regarding restrictions on license, such evidence, in prosecution for driving while suspended, was “some proof” other than defendant’s confession which corroborated confession that he had been driving. State v. Manzella, 88 Or App 258, 744 P2d 1321 (1987), aff’d 306 Or 303, 759 P2d 1078 (1988)
This section does not require corroboration of defendant’s admissions or other statements that do not constitute confessions. State v. Manzella, 306 Or 303, 759 P2d 1078 (1988)
“Other proof” that crime has been committed must be sufficient to permit reasonable inference that specific crime to which defendant confessed actually occurred. State v. Fry, 180 Or App 237, 42 P3d 369 (2002)
Where apology to victim was written while in police custody, immediately after confession and at urging of police, apology was for purpose of acknowledging guilt and therefore not independent corroboration of confession. State v. Muzzy, 190 Or App 306, 79 P3d 324 (2003), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence independent of confession must tend to prove: 1) injury or harm specified in crime occurred; and 2) injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity. State v. Simons, 214 Or App 675, 167 P3d 476 (2007), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Delp, 218 Or App 17, 178 P3d 259 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant confesses to second degree burglary, evidence of unlawful entry into building is insufficient to corroborate confession. State v. Chatelain, 220 Or App 487, 188 P3d 325 (2008), aff’d 347 Or 278, 220 P3d 41 (2009)
Defendant’s repetition of confession is not “some other proof” that crime has been committed. State v. Kelley, 239 Or App 266, 243 P3d 1195 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Requirement for corroboration of confession applies to confession induced by private party. State v. Powell, 242 Or App 645, 256 P3d 185 (2011), aff’d 352 Or 210, 282 P3d 845 (2012)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State v. Washington, 5 Or App 347, 483 P2d 465 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Gairson, 5 Or App 464, 484 P2d 854 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Patterson, 5 Or App 438, 485 P2d 429 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Brewton, 238 Or 590, 395 P2d 874 (1974); distinguished in State v. Green, 271 Or 153, 531 P2d 245 (1975)
Up to date