State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 15 July 1965 |
| Citation | 241 Or. 105,404 P.2d 187 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Leo TURNER, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Alan D. Gross, Salem, argued the cause and submitted a brief for appellant.
John D. Burns, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, SLOAN O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
Defendant and two others were charged with result with intent to rob. The gist of the offense charged was that Turner and his companions entered a small grocery store in Portland with the intent to rob the proprietors of the store. The state claimed that Turner pointed a loaded gun at a lady proprietor and ordered her to put up her hands. When she hesitated Turner, it was claimed, struck her with the gun. The three men then fled the scene. The assault was alleged to have occurred in the early afternoon.
Turner's two companions were arrested later in the afternoon and gave the police statements incriminating themselves and Turner. About 7 p.m. of the same day Turner was arrested at the home of a girl friend. He was immediately taken to the police station. At that time he refused to talk with the officers.
About 5:30 p.m. the next afternoon Turner was again questioned by the officers and again he refused to talk. At that time he was told of the seriousness of the offense he was charged with and that it could lead to a lengthy sentence. Turner was returned to his cell. About two hours later he had the jailor call the officers he had previously talked with and advised them he wanted to talk. At that time he gave an oral statement which implicated him in the crime charged. This statement was used against him at the trial and forms the basis for an assignment of error because of the failure of the officers to advise him of his right to remain silent and of his right to counsel. He was again questioned on the following day.
The record is uncertain as to when, if at all, the officers advised him effectively of his right to counsel and of the right to remain silent. The one officer who testified could not specify the time. The officer at first said that Turner was not advised of his rights until the day following his claimed confession. The officer later testified that he 'believed' that Turner was advised of his rights at the time he gave the incriminating statement. This uncertainty was not clarified. The questioning of the officer was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...Russo v. State of New Jersey, 351 F.2d 429 (3 Cir. 1965); People v. Schader, 62 Cal.2d 716, 44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665; State v. Turner, Or., 404 P.2d 187; State v. Dufour, R.I., 206 A.2d It is clear that until defendant reached the station and was turned over to the detectives for ques......
-
State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash
...62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361.14 See, State v. Neely (1964) 239 Or. 487, 395 P.2d 557, 398 P.2d 482; State v. Turner (1965) Or., 404 P.2d 187.15 See, State v. Dufour (1965) R.I., 206 A.2d 82.16 See, United States ex rel. Russo v. State (3 Cir.) 351 F.2d 429; Galarza Cruz v. ......
-
State v. Leiss
...ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey, (3 Cir.), 351 F.2d 429; and State v. Breaker, 178 Neb. 887, 136 N.W.2d 161. See also State v. Turner, Or., 404 P.2d 187; People v. Schader, 62 Cal.2d 716, 44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361; a......
-
State v. Turner
...five years' imprisonment. He appealed and his conviction was reversed for constitutional error committed at his trial. State v. Turner, 241 Or. 105, 404 P.2d 187 (1965). He was retried before a different judge, convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with credit allowed for two......