State v. Sallee
| Decision Date | 08 September 1965 |
| Citation | 405 P.2d 501,241 Or. 244,81 Or.Adv.Sh. 101 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Harold W. SALLEE, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Garret L. Romaine, Portland, argued the cause and submitted briefs for appellant.
George M. Joseph, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were George A. Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., and Harold D. Blank, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of knowingly uttering and publishing a forged bank check. The appeal is based upon the contention that defendant was not informed of his right to remain silent or of his right to counsel and that ORS 133.550 was violated in that he was not promptly brought before a magistrate.
Since the alleged violation of ORS 133.550 was not asserted at the trial, it cannot be raised upon appeal. State v. Allen, 80 Or.Adv.Sh. 925, 404 P.2d 207 (1965).
Defendant concedes that he was informed of his right to counsel but he contends that he was not so informed until after he had been interrogated by the police. The interrogating officer testified that he informed defendant of his right to counsel prior to interrogation.
There was a similar conflict in the evidence as to whether defendant was informed of his right to remain silent. Defendant duly objected to the use of defendant's admission made during interrogation on the two grounds noted above. The trial court overruled defendant's objection, thus finding, in effect, that defendant was informed of his rights prior to interrogation and that he waived these rights at the time he made the admissions to the police. We have no basis for making a contrary finding.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Taggart
-
State v. Dayton
...by the court that the defendant was informed of her rights prior to questioning and that she waived such rights. State v. Sallee, 81 Or.Adv.Sh. 101, 405 P.2d 501 (1965); State v. Ervin, 81 Or.Adv.Sh. 385, 406 P.2d 901 Defendant also claims that if she was warned, it was not an effective war......
-
State v. Ervin
...the ruling admitting the evidence that the court was satisfied that the defendant's rights had been protected. See State v. Sallee, 81 Or.Adv.Sh. 101, 405 P.2d 501 (1965). The only substantial question presented by the assignments of error is whether, upon the record, the evidence was suffi......