State v. Osorno
Decision Date | 13 August 2014 |
Docket Number | 120444112,A151949. |
Citation | 333 P.3d 1163,264 Or.App. 742 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kekainani OSORNO, aka Kekaimanni Osorono, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and David Sherbo–Huggins, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and DeVORE, Judge, and GARRETT, Judge.
A jury convicted defendant of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), reckless driving, and failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged. At trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony regarding defendant's invocation of her right to remain silent, despite a pretrial ruling that such evidence was inadmissible. The trial court denied defendant's motions for a mistrial and for a new trial based on its conclusion that, although the elicitation of the testimony was clearly improper, it did not prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial. We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial. We reverse and remand.
The facts pertinent on appeal are not disputed. A green sport-utility vehicle (SUV) collided with a vehicle driven by Aleksandra Dikova. When the SUV immediately left the scene, Dikova called the police and described the SUV that had hit her. A short time later, police observed an SUV matching that description in a convenience store parking lot. As Sergeant Snyder pulled his patrol car into the parking lot, defendant, who was standing near the SUV, began walking away. Snyder called out to her several times, but defendant continued to walk away. Snyder took hold of defendant and walked her to his patrol car. Defendant told Snyder that the SUV belonged to her, but that her friend had been driving it and had left on foot. Snyder handcuffed defendant and placed her in his patrol car.
Police transported Dikova's brother, Vasiliy Dikov, who had been riding with Dikova at the time of the collision, to the parking lot to determine if Dikov could identify defendant as the driver of the SUV. Dikov had told police that he believed the SUV's driver was either Filipino or African American. When Dikov arrived at the parking lot, police removed defendant, still handcuffed, from the back of the patrol car, to face Dikov. Dikov said something to the effect of, “that is the person that hit us.” He told police that he was 100 percent sure. The police told Dikov that they were “pretty sure” defendant had been the driver.
Defendant was taken to a police station, where Officer Martinson administered field sobriety tests. Defendant failed the tests. She submitted to a breath test, which revealed a blood-alcohol-content (BAC) level of .14. Martinson asked defendant “when she stopped drinking,” to which defendant replied, “Don't want to say anything incriminating.”
Prior to trial, defendant sought to exclude any evidence that she had invoked her right against self-incrimination during her interview with Martinson. The trial court agreed that “that would not be admissible.”
At trial, however, the following exchange occurred during the state's redirect examination of Martinson:
Defendant objected, and counsel met immediately with the trial judge in chambers, where defendant moved for a mistrial. Following that conference, the court instructed the jury as follows:
Subsequently, outside the presence of the jury, the trial court allowed defendant to make a record of her in-chambers motion for a mistrial:
“ * * * *
“Letting it in in front of the jury is—it should be a mistrial. The jury's heard it. We took about a minute or two in chambers right after the statement came out to talk about it so they were sitting here in silence without the Judge or the attorneys in the courtroom, so obviously they knew this was significant; came back in, and there was an instruction saying, ‘Don't’—‘You know, disregard that statement.’ The bell is rung. You cannot unring the bell, and the case law supports that. I think this is a mistrial. I think it's clear.
The prosecutor argued further that, while the officer “should not have testified to the defendant's statement,” a “mistrial [would be] the most extreme option,” and that the curative instruction was a sufficient remedy. Defense counsel disagreed:
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The problem is [defendant's] statement by saying, ‘I don't want to incriminate myself,’ * * * only makes sense in the context if she was driving because it's not against the law to drink, so she's basically saying to the officer * * * that she's guilty in that statement[.]”
The court denied defendant's motion for mistrial, concluding that:
The court invited defense counsel to propose “any additional curative instruction,” but counsel declined, explaining, “I believe that the curative instruction that was already given has made the problem worse already, so I would go with no curative instruction over any curative instruction at all.”
Defendant was convicted of DUII, ORS 813.010; reckless driving, ORS 811.140; and failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, ORS 811.700. Defendant moved for a new trial on the same grounds as in her motion for mistrial. The court denied defendant's motion for a new trial, again citing the prosecutor's inexperience, the curative instruction, and the “strength of the evidence,” including the “alcohol content” and the “strength of the witness testimony.”
On the DUII charge, defendant was sentenced to 10 days in jail and three years of enhanced bench probation, and 100 hours of community service. On the other two charges, defendant was sentenced to two years of probation.
We review the denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion, and we will not reverse a conviction on that basis unless the defendant was denied a fair trial. State v. Veatch, 223 Or.App. 444, 455, 196 P.3d 45 (2008) (citing State v. Smith, 310 Or. 1, 24, 791 P.2d 836 (1990)). A fair trial is that in which “the verdict is based on the evidence and not on factors external to the proof at trial.” Pachl v. Zenon, 145 Or.App. 350, 360 n. 1, 929 P.2d 1088 (1996), rev. den.,325 Or. 621, 941 P.2d 1022 (1997).
Defendant argues that she did not receive a fair trial because the state elicited testimony concerning defendant's invocation of her right to remain silent “in a context that gave rise to a prejudicial inference.” Defendant further argues that the court's curative instruction was insufficient to overcome that prejudicial inference. The state counters that the curative jury instruction was sufficient to ensure that defendant received a fair trial, and that the trial court acted reasonably within its discretion in concluding that the improper testimony did not affect the jury.
A reference by a prosecutor or a witness to the fact that a defendant exercised a constitutional right, such as the right to remain silent, “may prejudice ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cox
...“Generally, a proper jury instruction is sufficient to protect the defendant against any prejudice.” Id.; accord State v. Osorno, 264 Or.App. 742, 749–50, 333 P.3d 1163 (2014). That being said, some statements are so prejudicial that, as a practical matter, an instruction cannot remedy the ......
-
State v. Hunt
...to be fair, the verdict must be "based on the evidence" rather than "factors external to the proof at trial." State v. Osorno , 264 Or. App. 742, 748, 333 P.3d 1163 (2014) (citation omitted). A prosecutor's or a witness's reference to the defendant having exercised a constitutional right—li......
-
State v. Oxford
...court, and we will not reverse a denial of a motion for mistrial "unless the defendant was denied a fair trial." State v. Osorno , 264 Or. App. 742, 747, 333 P.3d 1163 (2014). We use several factors taken from our prior case law to guide our evaluation of whether a trial court has abused it......
-
State v. Reineke
...jury is likely to infer that the defendant exercised the right because he or she was guilty of the charged offense.’ ” State v. Osorno, 264 Or.App. 742, 748, 333 P.3d 1163 (2014) (quoting State v. Veatch, 223 Or.App. 444, 455–56, 196 P.3d 45 (2008) ); cf. Ragland, 210 Or.App. at 190, 149 P.......