State v. Simmons

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 02-05-2020
  • Case #: A163661
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J., for the Court; Ortega, P.J; & Powers, J
  • Full Text Opinion

“A confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” ORS 136.425(1). "Any communication made with the idea of some 'temporal benefit or disadvantage' for the criminal defendant is enough to run afoul with the statute." State v. Linn, 179 Or 499, 504-07, 173 P2d 305 (1946); State v. Bell, 281 Or App 208, 383, P3d 327 (2016).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Delivery of a Controlled Substance. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his statements made to Detective Betonte. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statements given about his possession and delivery of oxycodone pills to Betonte were made improperly by the inducement of Betonte’s communication that he could potentially release Defendant from custody. In response, the State argued by supporting the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, and offering in the alternative, that any error is still harmless. “A confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” ORS 136.425(1). "Any communication made with the idea of some 'temporal benefit or disadvantage' for the criminal defendant is enough to run afoul with the statute." State v. Linn, 179 Or 499, 504-07, 173 P2d 305 (1946); State v. Bell, 281 Or App 208, 383, P3d 327 (2016). The Court concluded that Betonte's statements to Defendant offered provided him with the hope that, if he continued to talk, Betonte would "intercede on his behalf with the prosecutor.” Therefore, the trial court erred when it concluded that defendant’s statements were not improperly induced and denied his motion to suppress. Conviction on County 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top