State v. Hadd

"If a defendant is in custody or compelling circumstances, then 'police must give Miranda warnings.'” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638 (2006). "In determining whether the circumstances were compelling, our 'overarching inquiry is whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'” Id. at 641.

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of rape in the second degree, and one count of rape in the second degree. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made before his indictment. Defendant argued that detectives violated the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution because law enforcement failed to provide him with Miranda warnings, despite him being in compelling circumstances, and detectives failed to clarify his statement when he sought to invoke his right to remain silent. The State argued that there was no need to give Miranda warnings to Defendant when the statements were made because he was not in custody or in compelling circumstances. "If a defendant is in custody or compelling circumstances, then 'police must give Miranda warnings.'” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638 (2006). "In determining whether the circumstances were compelling, our 'overarching inquiry is whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'” Id. at 641. The Court determined that a Miranda warning was unnecessary because Defendant was free to leave when the statements were made. The Court rejected all further assignments of error made by Defendant. Judgment to pay attorney fees reversed; Defendant’s judgment of conviction affirmed.