State v. Grooms, C
Decision Date | 18 August 1980 |
Docket Number | No. C,C |
Citation | 47 Or.App. 1001,615 P.2d 1130 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Richard Orson GROOMS, Appellant. 78-09-14303; CA 13412. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Marianne Bottini, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Robert C. Cannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and JOSEPH, WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.
Defendant waived a jury and was convicted by the court of aggravated murder. ORS 163.095. 1 On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. He also contends that ORS 163.095, the aggravated murder statute, is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection because aggravated murder while in the course of committing a felony is indistinguishable from felony murder except for the penalty which may be imposed.
On August 14, 1978, Edward Klemmer died from multiple head wounds caused by being struck several times with a hammer. Defendant was a prime suspect. On August 30, 1978, defendant was arrested on outstanding theft warrants in Lynwood, Washington. He was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), and indicated that he did not wish to talk. Oregon authorities were notified of defendant's arrest and went to Lynwood where, prior to any questioning, the Oregon detectives again advised defendant of his constitutional rights. At this time, defendant agreed to talk and signed a formal waiver of his rights. 2
During the course of his questioning, defendant admitted striking Klemmer several times with a hammer. After this confession, the detective requested defendant's permission to make a taperecording of the previous confession to which defendant agreed. During the taping of the confession, defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights, and in response to the detective's question as to whether he wished the presence of an attorney, defendant stated "(he didn't) know." The detective then asked if he could continue his questioning:
Defendant then repeated his previous confession.
Defendant's equivocal response to Detective Weber's questioning as to whether he wanted an attorney present did not amount to a request for an attorney and did not require questioning to cease. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313, 321 n. 10 (1976). 3
Defendant did not contend that he did not receive or understand his Miranda rights. On trial, defendant's sole contention was that the confession was not voluntary.
After conducting a State v. Brewton, 238 Or. 590, 395 P.2d 874 (1964) hearing on the voluntariness issue, the trial court concluded that the confession was voluntary. The evidence is overwhelming that defendant had been fully advised of his rights and had elected to waive them. There was no evidence that the taped confession was other than voluntarily made. In any event, no contention is made that the previous oral confession was not made voluntarily after defendant was advised of his rights.
Defendant also claims that after he asserted his right to remain silent and declined to discuss the outstanding theft warrants with the Washington detectives, he could not be subsequently questioned by the Oregon detectives concerning the murder of Klemmer. That contention is without merit. In Michigan v. Mosley, supra, the defendant declined to answer any questions concerning two robberies. Questioning about the robberies ceased and was not resumed. Later, after being again advised of his Miranda rights and signing a waiver form, Mosley was questioned concerning a homicide to which he confessed. The Supreme Court, in holding that the confession was admissible, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...People v. Johnson, (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 1, 112 Cal.Rptr. 834; Larkin v. State, (1981) 247 Ga. 586, 278 S.E.2d 365; State v. Grooms, (1980) 47 Or.App. 1001, 615 P.2d 1130. In a Michigan case cited by appellant in which the Supreme Court of Michigan held malice is a required element of any mu......
-
Grooms v. Keeney, 86-4287
...state trial court conducted a hearing on the voluntariness of the confession and concluded it was voluntary. State v. Grooms, 47 Or.App. 1001, 1003, 615 P.2d 1130, 1132 (1980). Grooms entered a plea of not guilty, waived jury trial and was convicted of aggravated murder pursuant to Or.Rev.S......