State v. Burger
Decision Date | 25 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. CR79-1968,CR79-1968 |
Citation | 55 Or.App. 712,639 P.2d 706 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Lonnie Ross BURGER, Appellant. ; CA A21257. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
William Uhle, Oregon City, argued the cause and filed brief for appellant.
Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief was Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before RICHARDSON, P. J., JOSEPH, C. J., and VAN HOOMISSEN, J.
Defendant appeals his convictions by a jury on charges of resisting arrest and assault in the fourth degree. He contends that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress evidence of independent crimes committed upon police officers following an arguably unlawful entry into his home, (2) in denying his motion for acquittal and (3) in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of self-defense in the language of Uniform Jury Instructions 403.11 and 403.12.
On September 14, 1979, Officer Grady heard a radio report of a theft at the Big O Tire Store and that two male suspects had been seen walking north on Molalla Avenue in Oregon City. Responding to the call, Grady saw defendant and another man walking north on Molalla Avenue approximately two blocks from the store. Grady stopped the men and asked for identification, explaining that he was investigating a recent burglary in the area. Defendant ran.
Grady next saw defendant 15 minutes later in the parking lot of his apartment complex. He again requested that defendant stop, but he walked across the parking lot to his apartment, opened the door and entered. Grady approached the open apartment door and again requested identification. Defendant ordered Grady out of the apartment and slammed the door. Grady then burst through the door, knocking defendant to the ground. A struggle ensued. Officer Behan arrived, and he and Grady subdued and handcuffed defendant. As the officers were leading defendant out of his apartment, he kicked Sgt. Collier, who was assisting them. The officers then took defendant to a patrol car. As they were placing him in the patrol car, he kicked Grady in the face.
Defendant was charged with (1) resisting arrest, by kicking Sgt. Collier, and (2) assault in the fourth degree, by kicking Officer Grady while Grady was attempting to place him in the patrol car.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of independent crimes committed after police had made a warrantless entry into his home. 1 On similar facts, we have rejected extension of the exclusionary rule to such evidence. State v. Gaffney, 36 Or.App. 105, 583 P.2d 582 (1978), rev. den. 285 Or. 195 (1979). In Gaffney, officers unlawfully stopped defendant. When an officer began an external pat down for weapons, the defendant allegedly shoved the officer with his hands and fists, giving rise to a charge of harassment. When the officers placed the defendant into the back seat of a patrol car, he attempted to kick out a window, damaging the inside of the car, which gave rise to a charge of criminal mischief. We stated:
(Footnote omitted.) 36 Or.App. at 108-09, 583 P.2d 582.
We adhered to the Gaffney rationale in State v. Rodriguez, 37 Or.App. 355, 357, 587 P.2d 487 (1978), rev. den. 285 Or. 319 (1979).
Defendant attempts to distinguish Gaffney and Rodriguez on the basis that they involved illegal stops, whereas this case involves an arguably illegal entry into a home. As defendant correctly notes, freedom from intrusion into the home constitutes the core of one of the protections secured by both state and federal constitutions. That important freedom explains the rule requiring that, absent exigent circumstances, police officers must obtain a warrant before entering a home to search or to make an arrest. See, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The issue here, however, is not whether physical evidence obtained because of a warrantless entry should be suppressed, but whether evidence of crimes committed against police officers after they have unlawfully entered a home should be suppressed. We decline to hold that after an unlawful entry evidence of subsequent crimes committed against police officers must be suppressed. Such a rule would produce intolerable results. For example, a person who correctly believed that his home had been unlawfully entered by the police could respond with unlimited force and, under the exclusionary rule, could be effectively immunized from criminal responsibility for any action taken after that entry. See State v. Gaffney, supra, 36 Or.App. at 108-09, 583 P.2d 582. We do not believe that either the state or federal constitution compels such a result.
The Supreme Court recently observed:
" * * * We have held that the exclusionary rule of search and seizure should be applied only as broadly as is necessary to accomplish its protective and prophylactic purposes. State v. Nettles, 287 Or. 131, 597 P.2d 1243 (1979). See State v. Scharf, 288 Or. 451, 461 n. 10, 605 P.2d 690 (1980). The device of excluding trustworthy evidence from the factfinding process in order to serve higher purposes 'is a needed, but grudgingly taken medicament; no more should be swallowed than is needed to combat the disease.' Amsterdam, Search, Seizure and Section 2255, 112 U Pa L R 378, 389 (1964). * * * " State v. Quinn, 290 Or. 383, 397, 623 P.2d 630 (1981).
Under the circumstances of this case, if the trial court had allowed the motion to suppress, it would have applied the exclusionary rule more broadly than was necessary to accomplish its prophylactic purposes. The trial court properly denied the motion.
Defendant next contends that the state failed to disprove his defenses of self-defense and defense of premises and that, therefore, his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been allowed. The test for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979):
"(T)he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
On the resisting arrest charge, there was evidence that at the time defendant kicked Sgt. Collier, defendant was under arrest and was not being subjected to excessive force. Under those circumstances, defendant was not entitled to resist arrest, nor was he entitled to use force in defense of his premises. See ORS 161.260; 161.209; see also, State v. Crane, 46 Or.App. 547, 553 n.3, 612 P.2d 735, rev. den. 289 Or. 903 (1980). 2 Similarly, on the assault charge there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that at the time of the offense, defendant was not being subjected to excessive force. See State v. Harris, 288 Or. 703, 721, 609 P.2d 798 (1980). Therefore, the motion for acquittal was properly denied.
Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give Uniform Jury Instructions 403.11 and 403.12, which explain the nature and scope of the right of self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury: "Resisting arrest is not criminal if the arrest is made by the use of excessive force." The state concedes that defendant was entitled to have his theory of self-defense presented to the jury, because there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. City of Danville, Record No. 2810-03-3.
...evidence of a police officer's murder after the officer illegally entered the defendant's premises was admissible); State v. Burger, 55 Or.App. 712, 639 P.2d 706, 708 (1982) (holding that an illegal warrantless entry cannot immunize subsequent criminal activity); State v. Mitchell, 848 S.W.......
-
State v. Holt, 132
...N.E.2d 402 (1976); State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E.2d 353 (1973); State v. Indvik, 382 N.W.2d 623 (N.D.1986); State v. Burger, 55 Or.App. 712, 639 P.2d 706 (1982); State v. Miskimins, 435 N.W.2d 217 (S.D.1989). 5. We pause to note hypothetically that, if Detective Crystal had seen th......
-
State v. Mierz
...... be effectively immunized from criminal responsibility." Aydelotte, 35 Wash.App. at 132, 665 P.2d 443 (quoting State v. Burger, 55 Or.App. 712, 716, 639 P.2d 706, 708 (1982)). Commonwealth v. Saia, 372 Mass. 53, 58, 360 N.E.2d 329, 332 (1977), quoted in State v. Aydelotte, 35 Wash.App. 1......
-
State v. Suppah
...(evidence that defendant hit officer in the head was admissible even if officer had illegally stopped defendant); State v. Burger, 55 Or.App. 712, 715–16, 639 P.2d 706 (1982) (evidence that defendant kicked officers after being arrested was admissible even if the arrest was unlawful). And, ......