State v. Center

As the Supreme Court has explained, “the purpose of the common-law rule and the statute that now embodies it,” i.e., ORS 136.425(1), “is to exclude potentially false—and thus unreliable—confessions from evidence.” State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012).

Defendant appealed a judgment of attempting to elude a police officer. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his confession to being the driver of the pursued vehicle because his confession was involuntary under ORS 136.245(1) and Article, I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. The State argued that “[the officer’s] threat was not unlawfully coercive, because he had probable cause to arrest Defendant and therefore was merely threatening to do something that he had the lawful authority to do.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “the purpose of the common-law rule and the statute that now embodies it,” i.e., ORS 136.425(1), “is to exclude potentially false—and thus unreliable—confessions from evidence.” State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012). The Court found that “Defendant’s confession, following as it did upon [the officer] giving Defendant an ultimatum—effectively, ‘confess or you will go to jail and may well find yourself unable to recover your [car]’—was induced by [the officer’s] threats and promises.” The Court held that the officer’s statements, at least collectively, were “sufficiently compelling to elicit a false confession.” Reversed and remanded.