State v. Craigen

“Once an attorney is appointed or retained, there can be no interrogation of a defendant concerning the events surrounding the crime charged unless the attorney representing the defendant on that charge is notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to attend.” State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983).

Defendant was questioned without his attorney about a felon in possession charge he had retained counsel for during an interrogation for an unrelated murder that he was ultimately convicted of. The State assigned error to the Court of Appeals’ reversal of Defendant’s conviction for the murder charge. The State argued interrogating represented defendants without their attorneys about uncharged crimes should be permissible if they were committed after the charged crimes and if they are “fundamentally different” than the charged crimes. In response, Defendant argued that interrogating defendants about uncharged crimes could lead to incriminating statements about the defendant’s charged crimes and would violate a defendant’s right to counsel. “Once an attorney is appointed or retained, there can be no interrogation of a defendant concerning the events surrounding the crime charged unless the attorney representing the defendant on that charge is notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to attend.” State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983). The Court reasoned that Defendant had been questioned about the felon in possession charge without his attorney present, and therefore the interaction was a clear violation of the Sparklin rule. Court of Appeals decision affirmed and case remanded.