State v. Jones

Questions that are necessary to secure an officer's safety or the safety of the public and are not designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect are allowed as a public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment. New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649, 659, 104 S Ct 2626, 81 L Ed 2d 550 (1984).

Defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree assault and four counts of reckless endangerment.  Defendant assigned error to the court's exclusion of expert testimony offered to support a self-defense claim.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the pre-Mirandized statements should not have been admitted because there is no "public safety" exception under the Oregon Constitution to allow the statements in. In response, the State argued that the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement applied because the officers knew there was a "loose gun" in the home while questioning Defendant. Questions that are necessary to secure an officer's safety or the safety of the public and are not designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect are allowed as a public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment. New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649, 659, 104 S Ct 2626, 81 L Ed 2d 550 (1984).  The Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant's statements because the pre-Mirandized evidence was unlikely to have influenced the verdict since there was other evidence that made many of the same points. 

Affirmed