State v. Riley

“The state must prove that the violation of [a] defendant’s rights had such a tenuous factual link to the disputed evidence that the unlawful police conduct cannot be properly viewed as the source of that evidence.” State v. Benning, 273 Or App 183, 194, 359 P3d 357 (2015).

Defendant appealed a conviction of one count murder against himself and two co-defendants. See State v. Allen, 288 Or App 244, ___ P3d ___ (2017); State v. Lomax, 288 Or App 253, ___ P3d ___ (2017). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the failure to provide concurrent jury instructions of principal or accomplice liability. On appeal, Defendant argued that the police unlawfully seized him when they surrounded the apartment he was in, thus, the evidence found pursuant to that unlawful seizure should be suppressed. The State responded that even if Defendant was unlawfully seized, the witnesses voluntarily consented to a search of the apartment and voluntarily gave statements, thus, the evidence found was not “a product of police exploitation” of the seizure. “The state must prove that the violation of [a] defendant’s rights had such a tenuous factual link to the disputed evidence that the unlawful police conduct cannot be properly viewed as the source of that evidence.” State v. Benning, 273 Or App 183, 194, 359 P3d 357 (2015). The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the challenged evidence’s discovery was too attenuated from the unlawful seizure. The Court ultimately concluded the trial court did err by failing to provide proper concurrent jury instructions regarding principal or accomplice liability. See State v. Lomax, 288 Or App 253, ___ P3d ___ (2017). Conviction for murder reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.