State v. Williams

Based on the factors in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012), the State did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant’s consent to a DNA sample was not the result of the Miranda violation.

Defendant appealed a conviction for eight counts of sexually-related criminal violations in the first degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress DNA evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued the State improperly collected the DNA evidence because consent to the sample was part of a Miranda violation. In response, the State argued that the violation and Defendant’s consent to the sample were not causally connected and that the error was harmless. The Court analyzed the violation using the five factors from State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012). The Court found that the State’s violations were flagrant, there was not “a meaningful amount of time” between the violation and the consent, the Defendant remained in custody, and, while there was written and verbal consent, it was tied to the State’s constitutional violations. Based on these factors the State did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant’s consent was not the result of the Miranda violation. Reversed and remanded.