State v. Hensley

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, after a defendant has been charged with a crime and the right to counsel has attached, police are prohibited from questioning that defendant about the charged crime without first notifying his or her lawyer.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for five counts of first-degree robbery and five counts of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made during police questioning because the questioning was unconstitutional under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. The State argued that the robbery convictions should be affirmed because police would have inevitably obtained Defendant's confessions lawfully. Under Article I, section 11, after a defendant has been charged with a crime and the right to counsel has attached, police are prohibited from questioning that defendant about the charged crime without first notifying his or her lawyer. In this case, after Defendant was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, his court-appointed counsel was not notified prior to police questioning which led to Defendant's confession to five armed robberies. The Court concluded that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that, in the absence of the unlawful interrogation, predictable investigatory procedures would have inevitably produced Defendant's confessions to the armed robberies. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the statements. Reversed and remanded.