State v. Dalessio

Under State v. Moore/Coen, a defendant's trial testimony is considered tainted by the erroneous admission of unconstitutionally-obtained statements even if Defendant did not move to exclude his pretrial statement during his first trial.

Defendant appealed his convictions of attempted aggravated murder with a firearm, attempted murder with a firearm, and assault in the second degree with a firearm. Officers arrived at Defendant's residence in response to reports that Defendant was threatening suicide. Defendant opened the door and fired four or five rounds from a shotgun at where the officers were standing, injuring one. After his arrest, Defendant admitted to firing the gun. Defendant's first trial verdict was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to a jury issue. Before the second trial began, Defendant moved to dismiss both the pretrial statement and his testimony at the first trial. The trial court concluded that the pretrial statement should be dismissed, but not the testimony of the first trial as set forth in State v. McGinnis. That rule was superseded by the Oregon Supreme Court's adoption of State v. Moore/Coen. This case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether or not defendant's trial testimony was tainted by the admission of pretrial statements obtained unconstitutionally, and, if it is, the trial testimony must be excluded unless the court resolves that it did not refute, explain, or qualify the pretrial statements. Vacated and remanded.