State v. Allen

Decision Date06 December 1967
Citation434 P.2d 740,85 Or.Adv.Sh. 699,248 Or. 376
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Jack R. ALLEN, Appellant.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Donald Hansen, Medford, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.

Lee S. Werdell, Deputy Dist. Atty., Medford, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Thomas J. Owens, Dist. Atty., Medford.

Before PERRY, C.J., and McAllister, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, DENECKE, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.

McALLISTER, Justice.

This is the second appeal of this case. The defendant Jack R. Allen, was convicted of burglary in Jackson county on July 29, 1963, and appealed to this court. The conviction was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. State v. Allen, 239 Or. 524, 398 P.2d 477 (1965). Allen was again convicted, and now appeals from his sentence of eight years imprisonment in the penitentiary. His brief contains numerous assignments of error, most of which involve the admissibility of the same written confession involved in the prior appeal.

Unlike the prior appeal, there is surprisingly little dispute about the controlling facts. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1963, at about 9:00 o'clock, Allen was driving south on Interstate 5 immediately north of Grants Pass. Allen's wife, Rosemary, and his brother-in-law, Melvin Snodgrass, were riding with defendant. The car was stopped by Officer Birge of the Oregon State Police, who was acting in response to a teletype advising that Allen was wanted by authorities in Medford, and that his vehicle 'was wanted in connection with burglaries,' both in Jackson county and in Washington. The officer asked Allen for his driver's license and Allen produced a Washington operator's license. In compliance with the request of the officer, Allen opened the trunk of the car and the officer saw therein a small sledge hammer, a Polaroid camera, and some rolls of coins in the camera case. The officer then talked further with Allen about his driver's license and learned that Allen had been living in the Ashland area and had been employed by Bear Creek Orchards for over a month. The officer then told Allen he was under arrest 'for not having an Oregon operator's license.' The officer testified that with their consent he then gave both Allen and Snodgrass a 'pat-down' search.

In the meantime, State Police Officer Schneider, who had been summoned by radio, arrived on the scene. Officer Birge then asked Rosemary Allen and Snodgrass 'if they would mind' going to the Grants Pass office of the Oregon State Police, because 'we wanted to talk with them some more so we could straighten this out.' The group then proceeded to the state police office, which was nearby. Allen, who was under arrest, rode with Officer Birge, Rosemary Allen rode with Officer Schneider, and Snodgrass drove Allen's car. Officer Birge at the office got from Allen further information needed to fill out a complaint 'for no operator's license' and talked to Allen about 'the camera that was in his trunk.' After talking for a while Allen said he would like to see an attorney and according to the officer, 'we stopped right there.' A telephone call was placed to the justice of the peace at Grants Pass, who fixed Allen's bail on the traffic charge at $100. Allen was taken to the Josephine county jail at 10:10 a.m., about an hour after he was stopped on the highway.

There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether defendant tried to post bail on the traffic charge. The officers testified that defendant made no attempt to post bail whatever and that they were not authorized to accept bail. Defendant testified that when informed that his bail had been set at $100, he asked his wife to give the officers $100 from funds in her possession, but the officers refused to let her post bail and hustled him off to jail. It does appear that about $300 in Mrs. Allen's possession, much of it in coins and small bills, was held as evidence.

The next morning, Monday, March 25, Allen was interviewed in the jail by Sherman Smith, a Grants Pass attorney, and the two conferred again in a corridor of the courthouse immediately adjacent to the courtroom of the justice of the peace. Allen did not appear before the judge, but a plea of not guilty to the traffic charge was entered on his behalf by his attorney. Smith was retained to represent Allen on the traffic charge, but according to Smith, during his interview with Allen 'there was mention made of a felony warrant pending in Jackson county.' After his visit to the courthouse Allen was returned to the jail and remained there until he was picked up late Monday afternoon by a deputy sheriff from Jackson county.

In the meantime, on Sunday, March 24, both Rosemary Allen and Snodgrass had been picked up at the state police office in Grants Pass and taken to Medford by officers from Jackson county. The record concerning these two is incomplete, but it appears that on Monday, March 25, Mrs. Allen was being held in the Jackson county jail on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property. It also appears that on March 25, Snodgrass was being held in the Jackson county jail on a charge of burglary not in a dwelling, committed by breaking and entering the office of the Jeddeloh Bros. Sweed Mill, Inc., in Gold Hill. It further appears that on either Sunday or Monday, Snodgrass had confessed to the crime and implicated defendant Allen therein.

During the afternoon of Monday, March 25, a warrant for Allen's arrest was issued by the district court for Jackson county. The warrant was based on a complaint charging Allen with the burglary of the Jeddeloh office. A deputy sheriff from Jackson county took Allen from the jail in Grants Pass at 5:35 p.m., and brought him to the jail in the Jackson county courthouse at Medford.

Deputy Sheriff Bjorensen was at the Jackson county jail when Allen arrived and took Allen to an interrogation room and talked to him. The officer testified that he informed Allen that he had a right to counsel, that he did not have to say anything, and that anything he said could be used against him. Allen was reluctant to talk, and the officer told Allen that Snodgrass had given a statement. Allen asked to talk to Snodgrass and Snodgrass was brought to the room. Allen asked Snodgrass whether he had given a statement and received an affirmative reply. Allen then gave a statement to Deputy Sheriffs Bjorensen and DeBerry, admitting his complicity in the Jeddeloh burglary, as well as numerous other burglaries, including one in Baker county involved in State v. Allen, 241 Or. 95, 404 P.2d 207 (1965). Defendant's interrogation and the preparation and signing of his statement were concluded in about an hour and a half. Defendant was taken before a magistrate in the district court for Jackson county on Tuesday morning, March 26, 1963.

There is a conflict in the evidence concerning alleged coercion of Allen during his interrogation in the Jackson county jail. According to defendant the officers promised to release his wife if he confessed and threatened that he would be prosecuted for numerous burglaries if he did not. Defendant's charges of coercion were denied by the officers.

Allen testified at the In camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession. His testimony was contradictory and equivocal, but in part directly corroborated the testimony of Officer Bjorensen that Allen had been informed of his constitutional rights. Allen testified in part as follows:

'Q. Now, Mr. Allen, when you were up in the Jackson County Jail talking to these officers--I mean Officer Bjorensen and Dean DeBerry--you knew that you didn't have to talk to them unless you wanted to, did you?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Right. And you say that you asked about an attorney as soon as you went into the interrogation room?

'A. As soon as I found out for sure what the charge was, yes, I asked for an attorney.

'Q. That wasn't what I asked you, though, Mr. Allen. Did you ask about an attorney as soon as you entered the interrogation room?

'A. Yes, I did.

'Q. So you knew at that time you had a right to an attorney, didn't you?

'A. Yes.

'Q. You acknowledge, don't you, that while the officers were talking to you upstairs that they told you that if you didn't have money for an attorney that you'd get one appointed for you when you went before a magistrate. You acknowledge that, don't you?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And that was before you made this statement, wasn't it?

'A. I don't remember.

'Q. Would you say it could have been?

'A. Yes, it could have been, I imagine.'

The trial court found that Allen's confession was given voluntarily and after he was advised of his constitutional rights, as required by our decision in State v. Neely, 239 Or. 487, 395 P.2d 557, 398 P.2d 482 (1965). 1 We have carefully reviewed the record and concur with the findings of the trial court.

Although defendant's assignments of error are imprecise, he does contend that his confession was inadmissible because it was the product of an illegal arrest. ORS 482.300(2) requires a licensed operator to have his license in his immediate possession at all times while driving a motor vehicle, and to display it upon demand of a peace officer. 2 Whether this authority to stop a motorist to inspect his operator's license may be used as a pretext to stop the motorist for another purpose need not be decided in this case.

We are not concerned with the legality of the search of the trunk of defendant's automobile, which according to the police was consented to by defendant. Nothing observed during the search or later taken from the vehicle was received in evidence at defendant's trial.

Putting aside the question of motivation, which will be discussed later, we find nothing illegal about defendant's arrest for violation of the traffic code. ORS 482.040 provides that no person, except those expressly exempted by statute, shall drive any motor vehicle in this state unless he has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Carter
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1978
    ...was held to be admissible. The Supreme Court also upheld what it seems to have assumed was a pretext stop and arrest in State v. Allen, 248 Or. 376, 434 P.2d 740 (1967). "It is obvious from the record that the police were primarily interested in the defendant as a burglary suspect and that ......
  • State v. Fair
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1972
    ...granted an acquittal at the close of the state's case in chief, and the burglary charge was never submitted to a jury.4 State v. Allen, 248 Or. 376, 434 P.2d 740 (1967); State v. Dills; Stice, 244 Or. 188, 416 P.2d 651 (1966).5 State v. Thompson, 253 Or. 430, 452 P.2d 754, 455 P.2d 179 (196......
  • State v. Tucker
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1979
    ...rule, but a majority relied upon probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of a violation of the liquor laws. In State v. Allen, 248 Or. 376, 434 P.2d 740 (1967), both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion by Justice O'Connell focused not on the initial stop but on the sub......
  • North v. Cupp
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1969
    ...decided that neither Escobedo nor Neely sufficiently anticipated the requirements of Miranda when we decided in State v. Allen, 248 Or. 376, 382 n. 1, 434 P.2d 740 (1967), that the principles relating to police interrogation announced in Miranda would be given no retrospective application. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT