Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution prohibits police from questioning a represented defendant about uncharged offenses when it is objectively reasonably foreseeable that the questioning will elicit incriminating evidence concerning the charged offense. Applying that standard, the court concluded that questioning about sexual abuse of two other family members could foreseeably produce information about the charged abuse of another family member. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the circuit court judgment, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What test determines whether Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution prohibits police from questioning a represented defendant about uncharged offenses?
- Did questioning defendant about the alleged abuse of K and L violate defendant's Article I, section 11, right to counsel because it was reasonably foreseeable that the questioning would elicit incriminating information concerning the charged abuse of A?
- Was suppression of the statements required as a remedy for the constitutional violation?
Holdings
- Article I, section 11, forecloses police questioning of a represented defendant about uncharged offenses when it is objectively reasonably foreseeable to a person in the questioner's position that the questioning will elicit incriminating information concerning the charged offense for which the defendant obtained counsel.
- The questioning about K and L violated defendant's Article I, section 11, right to counsel because it was reasonably foreseeable that the questioning would elicit incriminating information concerning the charged abuse of A.
- The statements obtained through the unconstitutional questioning had to be excluded because the State did not dispute that the evidence was prejudicial and the trial court relied on the statements.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the appropriate test for determining the permissible scope of questioning of a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel is whether it is objectively reasonably foreseeable that the questioning will lead to incriminating evidence concerning the offense for which the defendant has obtained counsel.” (359 Or. at 18)
“We agree that whether charged and uncharged offenses are sufficiently related as to implicate the state constitutional right to counsel will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and whether they establish that it is reasonably foreseeable to a person in the position of the questioner that questioning will elicit incriminating information involving the charged offense for which the defendant has obtained counsel.” (359 Or. at 36-37)
Factual background
Defendant was charged with first-degree sexual abuse of A, a 12-year-old member of his extended family, and retained counsel. A detective later interviewed defendant in jail about separate, uncharged sexual-abuse allegations involving defendant's nieces K and L, knowing defendant was represented on the A charges but not notifying his lawyer. The offenses involving all three victims occurred at defendant's home, involved similar conduct and family-member child victims, and were investigated by the same detective. Defendant made incriminating statements about K and L, which the trial court considered in finding him guilty.
Procedural history
Defendant was charged with sexual abuse of A and retained counsel. While defendant was represented on those charges, police interviewed him about uncharged sexual-abuse allegations involving K and L without notifying his lawyer, and defendant made incriminating statements. The circuit court denied defendant's suppression motion and entered convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the charged and uncharged offenses were factually related for purposes of the state constitutional right to counsel. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the circuit court judgment, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed, the circuit court judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the suppression ruling.