State v. Collins
| Decision Date | 16 April 1969 |
| Citation | 88 Or.Adv.Sh. 233,253 Or. 74,453 P.2d 169 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Virgil Ray COLLINS, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Ralph T. Aldave, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Leahy, Dist. Atty., Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, P.J., and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, JJ.
The defendant was caught at about 4:00 a.m. inside a market. At the jail, at about 11:00 a.m., after the officer had informed him of his constitutional rights, the defendant told the officer he broke into the market and was gathering up food and drink for a picnic. These admissions were offered into evidence over defendant's objection. The defendant was found guilty of burglary not in a dwelling.
The defendant contended he was drunk or 'hung over' when the officer questioned him and the defendant did not understand or waive his rights. The trial court stated: 'It's the finding of the Court that the requirements of the Escobedo case and the Neely case and the Miranda case have been satisfied.'
We have held that whether or not an accused understood the warnings is a matter of historical fact and if there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding that the accused did understand, the finding will stand. State v. Breen, 250 Or. 474, 443 P.2d 624 (1968). There was evidence to support the trial court's finding.
We have also held that the accused's answering the officer's questions after the officer had advised him of his rights is evidence of waiver. State v. Wright, Or., 444 P.2d 912 (1968); State v. Matt, Or., 444 P.2d 914 (1968).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lonquest v. State
...Moss v. State, Wyo., 492 P.2d 1329, 1333. These circumstances make particularly applicable the statement by the court in State v. Collins, 253 Or. 74, 453 P.2d 169, 170, where the defendant claimed that when he made certain statements he was drunk or 'hung over' and did not understand or wa......
-
State v. Nichols
...to do so, defendant initially waived his right against compelled self-incrimination under Article I, section 12. See State v. Collins , 253 Or. 74, 75, 453 P.2d 169 (1969) (answering police questions following Miranda warnings is evidence of waiver of rights under Article I, section 12 ); S......
-
State v. Culley, 1405
...defendant's ability to understand his constitutional rights (See n. 1, supra), and the meaning of his statements. State v. Collins, 253 Or. 74, 453 P.2d 169 (1969); State v. Breen, 250 Or. 474, 443 P.2d 624 (1968); State v. Lowry, 245 Or. 565, 423 P.2d 172 (1967); State v. Goetjen, 1 Or.App......
-
State v. Goetjen
...evidence to support the finding of the trial court in this case.' 250 Or. at 476, 443 P.2d at 625. Subsequently, in State v. Collins, 88 Or.Adv.Sh. 233, 453 P.2d 169 (1969), the Supreme Court considered the test appropriate to a defendant who contends he 'was drunk or hung over' at the time......