State v. Beeson

Decision Date10 March 2021
Docket NumberA166382
Citation309 Or.App. 787,482 P.3d 821 (Mem)
Parties STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harry Creighton BEESON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtOregon Court of Appeals

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.

Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Mooney, Judge.

PER CURIAM

This case is before us on defendant's petition for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Beeson , 307 Or. App. 808, 479 P.3d 576 (2020), in which we affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the results of his breath test. Defendant contends that we misread State v. Swan , 363 Or. 121, 420 P.3d 9 (2018), and that the fact that Katter read the implied consent form to defendant weighs against, rather than in favor, of suppression. We agree that our opinion, at 307 Or. App. at 825, 479 P.3d 576, describing subsequent events that may have dissipated the taint of the earlier Miranda violation should be modified to remove Katter's reading of the implied consent form to defendant as one of those subsequent events. We reject defendant's remaining contentions and modify the first paragraph at 307 Or. App. at 825, 479 P.3d 576 to read as follows:

"Two significant events occurred between the Miranda violation and the consent for breath test that weigh against suppression: (1) Hodencamp read defendant his Miranda rights and, while doing so, prevented defendant from interrupting so that he could finish the Miranda warnings and obtain defendant's acknowledgment that he understood the warnings; and (2) the officers transported defendant to another location, the police station."

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Price
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • August 18, 2021
    ...to correct the error. See State v. Beeson , 307 Or. App. 808, 818-19, 479 P.3d 576 (2020), adh'd to as modified on recons. , 309 Or. App. 787, 482 P.3d 821 (2021) ("[W]hether or not defendant invited any error regarding the timing of the Miranda violation, he certainly did not preserve an a......
  • State v. Morales
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • March 10, 2021

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