State v. Gaylor
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Robert Lawrence GAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Doyle L. Schiffman and Thomas Garrison, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Kevin L. Mannix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and THORNTON, JJ.
Defendant was charged by separate indictments with three armed robberies in Roseburg on February 6, 1975: Casey's Restaurant, Richard's Food Center and United States National Bank. Each indictment charged robbery in the first degree.
The cases were consolidated for trial and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the charges involving the Food Center and the Bank, but found defendant not guilty on the remaining charge.
Defendant appeals. He makes numerous assignments of error. Not all require discussion. Before considering defendant's contentions we will give a brief outline of the essential facts.
The evidence concerning the robberies was that defendant owned a pickup truck; that he drove another young man, later identified as Steven Couch, to the above mentioned locations, where Couch took a pistol, got out of the pickup and held up the establishments.
The first robbery occurred at 4:30 a.m.; the second around 2:30 p.m. For this reason the police were in possession of a good description of the robber and the getaway vehicle by the time of the third crime, the bank robbery, which occurred about 3:45 p.m. Two of the officers who were driving to the bank following the robbery chanced to observe two men in a pickup as they passed the police car driving in the opposite direction. One of the officers noticed that one occupant of the pickup was wearing eyeglasses.
Based on this information and other investigative leads obtained from witnesses to the robberies, the police were soon able to locate the pickup parked next to a dwelling in the Roseburg area. Defendant and Couch had apparently gone to this house following the last robbery. Police immediately converged on the house. After it was surrounded, two of the officers went to the front door. As they approached, Couch's face appeared at a window. One of the officers recognized him and immediately shouted, Couch fled out a side door but was quickly apprehended.
Meanwhile the officers identified themselves to the two young men who had opened the door and asked for entry. Defendant, who was one of the two, invited the officers into the house. The officers then asked defendant if they could search his pickup and residence. Defendant agreed. He immediately took Officer Miner to a drawer in his bedroom and retrieved a bundle of currency taken in the bank holdup. He then took the officer to a drawer in another bedroom and showed him a .32 caliber pistol, similar to the gun used in the robberies. After this occurred, and after the officer learned from defendant that Couch did not habitually wear prescription-type eyeglasses, and saw that defendant did, he was then for the first time suspicious of defendant. He took defendant into a bedroom, closed the door, read defendant his Miranda rights 1 from a card, and then told defendant that he thought defendant had been driving when the pair left the bank, since, as already stated, the police had seen defendant driving the pickup along the street as the officers were answering the radio report concerning the bank robbery.
During the next five minutes defendant admitted he had been driving the getaway vehicle and described his involvement with Couch in the crime spree. Lt. Miner then placed defendant under arrest. The third young man who was in the house when the officers arrived was told to go home and await a possible call from the police.
We will now examine defendant's contentions. First of all, several of defendant's assignments of error claim that the trial judge committed reversible error in receiving the inculpatory statements defendant made to the police (and evidence seized), particularly those statements made during the initial questioning at defendant's home.
We are unable to discover any basis for defendant's contention that he was deprived of any of his Miranda rights, or that any coercion, force, threats or promises were made or used as to defendant. At the time of the initial questioning defendant was not a suspect. It was not until sometime later that Lt. Miner realized that defendant might have been involved in driving the getaway car, at least following the third crime, namely, the bank robbery. There is ample evidence supporting the conclusion of the trial judge that defendant was not in custody when he gave his active cooperation and consent. Therefore no Miranda advice was required. State v. Johnson, 10 Or.App. 353, 499 P.2d 348, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1972); State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Brown, 19 Or.App. 427, 528 P.2d 569 (1974), Sup.Ct. Review denied, cert denied 421 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 2405, 44 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nulph
...and the intoxication instruction was not misleading so as to require further clarification as to burden of proof. State v. Gaylor, 24 Or.App. 933, 547 P.2d 651, rev den Defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as follows: "Now, the state contends in this case th......
-
State v. Oliverez
...findings and conclusions and we will not retry this factual issue. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968); State v. Gaylor, 24 Or.App. 933, 547 P.2d 651, rev den On oral argument in this court defendant raises a novel contention respecting the voluntariness of his decision to tak......