State v. Schmidtke

An officer’s statements amount to unlawful interrogation when “the substance of the [statements made] to defendant and the manner in which those [statements] were [made] demonstrated that they were likely to elicit some type of incriminating response”, where incriminating response refers to any “inculpatory or exculpatory response” that a prosecutor may seek to introduce in a trial. State v. Scott, 343 Or 195 (2007).

Defendant appealed two judgments against him for identity theft, theft in the first degree, and escape in the second degree. Defendant assigned error to denial for the motion to suppress his statements that were made before his Miranda Rights were read to him. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court wrongly concluded that the statements were conducted during proper custodial interrogation. In response, the State argued that the statements were procedural and merely informed Defendant why he was being detained. An officer’s statements amount to unlawful interrogation when “the substance of the [statements made] to defendant and the manner in which those [statements] were [made] demonstrated that they were likely to elicit some type of incriminating response”, where incriminating response refers to any “inculpatory or exculpatory response” that a prosecutor may seek to introduce in a trial. State v. Scott, 343 Or 195 (2007). The court held that the statements were made to elicit an incriminating response because the officer made a statement that confronted the defendant with evidence against him and the statement was not one that officers generally use when conducting an arrest. Reversed and remanded.