State v. Chavez
| Decision Date | 31 October 2002 |
| Citation | 335 Or. 44,56 P.3d 923 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Victor Hugh Tumbaco CHAVEZ, Petitioner on Review. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Eric M. Cumfer, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.
Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Jacqueline L. Koch, Koch & Deering, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae United Mexican States.
We allowed review in this criminal case to address whether the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)1 grants to foreign nationals who have been arrested by state authorities a personal right to be told that they have the right to contact and communicate with their country's consul and, if so, whether suppression of evidence is the appropriate remedy for a violation of that right. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Chavez, 172 Or.App. 326, 19 P.3d 923 (2001). We now conclude that defendant failed to preserve the argument that, in this case, the VCCR required suppression.
Defendant was charged with sodomy, sexual abuse, unlawful sexual penetration, and attempted rape. When the police arrested defendant, they read him his Miranda rights in Spanish. Defendant stated that he understood those rights, and he asked for an attorney. Thereafter, defendant made incriminating statements to the police.
Defendant moved to suppress the incriminating statements on the grounds that their admission violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the VCCR. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the state argued that the admission of defendant's statements did not violate defendant's constitutional rights and that the VCCR does not create individual rights. The trial court responded, Defendant's lawyer then stated:
(Emphasis added.) Defendant's lawyer then argued only that defendant's incriminating statements had not been voluntary and, therefore, should be suppressed under Miranda.
The trial court determined that defendant's statements were voluntary and that they should not be suppressed. With respect to defendant's arguments regarding the VCCR, the trial court added:
"I find that there is no evidence of any prejudice that he suffered as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Calvert
...Defendant advances a different ground for suppression of the evidence on appeal than she asserted in the trial court. In State v. Chavez, 335 Or. 44, 56 P.3d 923 (2002), a similar situation arose. In that case, the defendant told the trial court that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relati......
-
State v. Parkins
...State v. Amaya, 336 Or. 616, 629, 89 P.3d 1163 (2004) (quoting Wyatt, 331 Or. at 343, 15 P.3d 22). The state relies on State v. Chavez, 335 Or. 44, 48, 56 P.3d 923 (2002), as a case arising on analogous facts in which this court held that defendant had failed to preserve the issue that he s......
-
State v. Hayes
...the trial court.6 Rather, defendant merely cited the Fourth Amendment, without any analytic amplification. See generally State v. Chavez, 335 Or. 44, 48, 56 P.3d 923 (2002) (addressing preservation Second, it is at least arguable that a material factor in the Court's analysis in Harris was ......
-
State ex rel Select Reform Comm. of Jefferson v. City of Jefferson
...22 (2000) (explaining that an issue not raised before the trial court generally will not be considered on appeal); State v. Chavez , 335 Or. 44, 48, 56 P.3d 923 (2002) (applying Wyatt to hold that, where a party affirmatively tells the trial court it is not pursuing a specific argument, tha......