State v. Bates
| Citation | 764 P.2d 550,307 Or. 170 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Ronald Dale BATES, Petitioner on Review. TC J86-1110; CA A42141; SC S35587. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1988 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for petitioner on review.
David B. Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Charlene C. Woods, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, contra.
Petition for review denied.
LINDE, J., dissented and filed an opinion.
The issue that defendant, whose confession was used in convicting him of burglary, wants this court to review is whether a police officer compelled his confession by "threatening" to question and possibly implicate defendant's mother and brother. The Court of Appeals dealt with this claim by stating:
State v. Bates, 92 Or.App. 385, 388, 758 P.2d 421 (1988). I would allow review to examine the proposition that the question of a "compelled" statement is affected by whether the further acts threatened by an officer are within his "right" (more properly, his authority). The proposition is at least doubtful.
In State v. Medenbach, supra, cited by the Court of Appeals, that court found that an officer's threat to arrest a driver who declined to take field sobriety tests was not coercive because the officer had probable cause for making such an arrest. State v. Medenbach, supra, 48 Or.App. at 138, 616 P.2d 543. State v. Bopp, in turn, also claimed to rest on State v. Douglas, supra. But Douglas, which concerned a consent to search, not a confession, given after an officer said that he would seek a search warrant, only quoted the statement of an intermediate California court that, in a similar case, there was no threat to do anything other than what the officers had a legal right to do. State v. Douglas, supra, 260 Or. at 75, 488 P.2d 1366.
This is weak authority for a dubious proposition. The issue in determining whether a confession was compelled or induced by a threat or a promise is not whether the threat or promise was made by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Center
......Accordingly, as defendant argues, Landers is inapposite. As defendant also argues, our observation in Landers, that a threat to do what is lawfully permitted does not constitute coercion, appears to rest on shaky ground. For that proposition, we cited State v. Bates , 92 Or. App. 385, 388, 758 P.2d 421, rev. den. , 307 Or. 170, 764 P.2d 550 (1988), but we did not discuss Bates or our rationale in that case. Bates , in turn, is even more sparse in its analysis, and it cites no particular authority for its conclusion. In that case, the defendant contended ......
-
State v. Center, A166777
...incriminate him or herself under those circumstances. Id. at 297-98 (citing State v. Bates, 92 Or.App. 385, 388, 758 P.2d 421, rev den, 307 Or. 170 (1988)). Cf. State v. Moore, 354 Or. 493, 502, 318 P.3d (2013), adh'd to as modified on recons, 354 Or. 835, 322 P.3d 486 (2014) (holding, in t......
-
State v. Hogeland, A157596
...would likely have taken their toll.The state, relying on State v. Bates , 92 Or.App. 385, 387-88, 758 P.2d 421, rev. den. , 307 Or. 170, 764 P.2d 550 (1988), contends that McGarvey's and Jenkins's "truthful references" to the likely consequences for defendant's wife and son if defendant did......
-
State v. Landers
...to take any action that was not authorized under the facts. See State v. Bates, 92 Or.App. 385, 388, 758 P.2d 421, rev. den. 307 Or. 170, 764 P.2d 550 (1988). Defendant nonetheless contends that his confession was induced by Codding's alleged promise to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, i......