State v. Andrews

Law enforcement is obligated to provide a Miranda warning prior to in-custody interrogation or questioning under circumstances an officer should recognize as compelling to protect a suspect’s rights against self-incrimination. State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.42.  Defendant asserted the trial court erred in denying motion to suppress his un-Mirandized statements because they occurred under compelling circumstances. The State countered the entirety of the interview was not compelling. Law enforcement is obligated to provide a Miranda warning  prior to in-custody interrogation or questioning under circumstances an officer should recognize as compelling to protect a suspect’s rights against self-incrimination. State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). An inquiry into compelling circumstances asks how a reasonable person would understand their situation if in the suspect’s position.  State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 645, 175 P3d 454 (2007). The Court rejected arguments that the interview was entirely compelling or non-compelling, finding the interview became compelling because the detective’s interrogation tactics culminated in a direct accusation that the Defendant knowingly sexually abused a child and repeatedly pressed Defendant regarding the allegations and inconsistencies in his story. In the totality of the circumstances, these tactics, considered cumulatively, established compelling circumstances under the Roble-Baker factor test. The Court held the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion and the error prejudiced Defendant.  REVERSED and REMANDED.