State v. Bush

“To ensure that a person’s waiver is knowing and voluntary, article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the police inform a person subjected to custodial interrogation that he has a right to remain silent . . . and any statements the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.” State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 474, 236 P.3d 691, 699 (2010).

Defendant appealed conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s ruling denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police following his arrest asserting that police did not wait a legally sufficient period of time before reinitiating conversation after he invoked his right to remain silent. On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right because he was under the influence of methamphetamine. In response, the State argued that the investigating officer waited a reasonable period of time after Defendant invoked his right and sufficiently re-advised Defendant of his Miranda rights. The State further argued that the trial court’s finding that Defendant’s level of intoxication did not prevent him from knowingly waiving his right is supported by evidence in the record. “To ensure that a person’s waiver is knowing and voluntary, article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the police inform a person subjected to custodial interrogation that he has a right to remain silent . . . and any statements the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.” State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 474, 236 P.3d 691, 699 (2010). The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err and held that the police honored Defendant’s rights before reinitiating questions, and evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding that Defendant was not too intoxicated and knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. Affirmed.