State v. Garrett

“[When the state violates] a defendant’s state constitutional rights and the defendant establishes a minimal factual nexus between the violation and the subsequent discovery of evidence, the evidence must be suppressed unless the state shows that the evidence did not result from that violation.” State v. Craigen, 370 Or 696, 712 (2023).

Based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the post-conviction court vacated defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial. Defendant moved to exclude inculpatory statements made to a probation officer during a presentence investigation which took place before the conviction’s vacation, and appealed that motion’s denial.

“[When the state violates] a defendant’s state constitutional rights and the defendant establishes a minimal factual nexus between the violation and the subsequent discovery of evidence, the evidence must be suppressed unless the state shows that the evidence did not result from that violation.” State v. Craigen, 370 Or 696, 712 (2023).

Because the presentence investigation would not have occurred but for the conviction (which itself resulted from a constitutional violation), “defendant has established a minimum factual nexus between the Article I, section 11 violation and his [inculpatory] statements. . . . [The] statements must be excluded unless the state establishes one of the exceptions to Oregon’s exclusionary rule.”

“Because defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a conditional guilty plea, we reverse and remand without determining whether the error was harmless. . . . On remand, defendant may withdraw his plea.”