State v. Goetjen

• Decision Date: 05 February 1970
• Citation: 1 Or.App. 533,464 P.2d 837
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Fred Gordon GOETJEN, Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 837

464 P.2d 837

1 Or.App. 533

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Fred Gordon GOETJEN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon, Department 1.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 19, 1970.

Decided Feb. 5, 1970.

J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Billy L. Williamson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.

Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and BRANCHFIELD, JJ. FORT, Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of knowingly uttering and publishing a forged bank check. ORS 165.115. He appeals from the resulting judgment and asserts as the sole assignment of error the admission into evidence of a statement claimed by him to have been made involuntarily while he was under the influence of drugs.

The defendant was arrested on April 23, 1968, for illegal possession of narcotics. He testified that he had had 'a fix' of heroin shortly before his arrest. The following day while still in custody he was arrested for the present crime. It is his contention that the statement he gave to the police later that day concerning this offense was involuntary, not only because of the narcotic effect of the drug upon him, but because of his subsequent condition during the withdrawal period.

In State v. Breen, 250 Or. 474, 443 P.2d 624 (1968), the Supreme Court considered the rule appropriate to a determination of an accused's understanding of his rights as 'an interrogated accused.' It stated:

'We agree with the defendant that if an accused is incapable of understanding his constitutional rights, he cannot be interrogated and any incriminating statements made as a result of interrogation are inadmissible. See Annotation, 69 A.L.R.2d 348 (1960), on admission of confessions obtained from the mentally subnormal. The question in the instant case is whether the defendant had sufficient mental capacity to understand relatively abstract concepts such as his constitutional right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. This question was raised by a motion to suppress.

'Whether or not the defendant understood is a question of what we today termed in Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 'historical fact.' The trial court by denying the motion to suppress decided this question of 'historical fact' adversely to the defendant. We today held in Miotke v. Gladden, 250 Or. 466, 443 P.2d 617 that we will affirm the finding of the trial court on a question of 'historical fact' if there is any evidence to support such finding. There was 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 he waived his rights and consented to be questioned. The court stated:

'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...