State v. Clifton
| Decision Date | 12 May 1965 |
| Citation | 401 P.2d 697,240 Or. 378,80 Or.Adv.Sh. 595 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Emmett Harris CLIFTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
John D. Burns, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the case for respondent. On the brief were George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., and Harold J. Blank, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of assault while being armed with a dangerous weapon. It is contended that defendant's constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent were violated.
Defendant made incriminating statements during interrogation by police officers. Defendant was not informed of his constitutional rights before the interrogation. When the police officers testified no objection was made to their testimony relating to the incriminating statements. The state concedes that if objection had been made there would be reversible error. The only question on appeal is whether defendant's failure to object constitutes a waiver of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent.
At the time of the trial Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) had not been decided. It is probable that if it had been decided at the time of defendant's trial appropriate objections would have been made. Under these circumstances we believe that the failure to object to the testimony of the police officers did not constitute a waiver of defendant's constitutional rights.
We express no opinion as to whether a failure to object would constitute a waiver in a case tried after Escobedo v. Illinois, supra.
The fact that the present case was tried prior to the decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, does not present a question of the retroactive effect of the Escobedo case because it is our view that a newly pronounced principle of constitutional law is operative with respect to all cases being tried or upon direct appeal in the courts of this state at the time of the pronouncement. See People v. Stewart, 43 Cal.Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97 (1965). It is not necessary to decide whether the principle in Escobedo is to be given effect in cases where a judgment of conviction together with final disposition on direct appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fair
...poses the question of the retroactivity of our decision in State v. Brown, 94 Or.Adv.Sh. 1591, 497 P.2d 1191 (1972). In State v. Clifton, 240 Or. 378, 401 P.2d 697 (1965) we said that no question of retroactivity arose in a case which had not been finally disposed of on appeal at the time t......
-
State v. Dills
...procedure, we decline to consider objections made for the first time in this court: State v. Evans, Or., 407 P.2d 621; State v. Clifton, 240 Or. 378, 401 P.2d 697. And see Schmerber v. California, June 20, 1966, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, Footnote On January 16, 1965, the ......
-
State v. Thompson
...with the formula established in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 s.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (see State v. Clifton, 240 Or. 378, 401 P.2d 697 (1965) and Guse v. Gladden, 243 Or. 406, 414 P.2d 317 (1966)). We have not changed the rule with regard to the retroactivity of We have a......
-
Haynes v. Cupp
...September 1964, but our holding was not fully defined until the opinion on the petition for rehearing in January 1965. In State v. Clifton, 240 Or. 378, 401 P.2d 697, decided in May 1965, we held that on appeal the defendant could successfully urge that it was error to admit admissions of t......