- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 10-06-2021
- Case #: A170343
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & Mooney, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of oxycodone and identity theft. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, the State conceded that the trial court committed reversible error. Notwithstanding its concession, the State argued that suppression was not warranted as to the additional drug evidence because that evidence was “sufficiently attenuated” and “not the result of the officer’s exploitation of the prior illegality.” For an appellate court to uphold a trial court’s ruling on the basis that it was “right for the wrong reason,” (1) the facts of record must be sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance; (2) the trial court’s ruling must be consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance; and (3) the record must materially be the same one that would have developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below. See Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60, 20 P3d 180 (2001). The Court found that any evidence obtained as a result of the search of the purse, including any statements attributed to Defendant following that search, should have been suppressed. Therefore, the Court held that the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s suppression motion in its entirety. Reversed and remanded.