State v. Shelby

[P]olice officers must provide Miranda-like warnings to a defendant who is in custody or in compel-ling circumstances prior to questioning. See State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). In determining whether a defendant is subject to compelling circumstances, the court examines ‘whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.’ Id. At 641.”

Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault, and he appealed. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements that were made during a jail disciplinary hearing. Defendant contended that statements should be suppressed as he invoke his right to silence, and there was no waiver of that right. Additionally, Defendant argued he was in “compelling circumstances” during the hearing, and that he was not aware of potential or criminal charges, nor did he have legal counsel prior to the hearing. “[P]olice officers must provide Miranda-like warnings to a defendant who is in custody or in compel-ling circumstances prior to questioning. See State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). In determining whether a defendant is subject to compelling circumstances, the court examines ‘whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.’ Id. At 641.” The Court ruled that the trial court’s erred in admitting Defendant’s statement from the hearing (a confession to the assault); however, this was harmless error as it “provided no information as to the only contested element at trial.” Affirmed.