Opinion ID: 1304022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the august 20 statements

Text: In the August 17 statement, defendant admitted being with the other parties to the crime but denied shooting anyone. During the August 18 interrogation, he claimed to have accidentally shot the victim in the arm. In the August 20 statement, defendant not only admitted being with the other parties to the crime and that he shot the victim but that he did so at the direction of a co-defendant who ordered him to shoot Norwest and that he shot Norwest in response to that command. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the August 20 statement was not tainted by any statements he made on August 17 or 18 and that it was voluntary. We agree. The question remains whether defendant's statements of August 20 were made in violation of his right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution? As previously mentioned, the Court of Appeals suppressed the August 20 statements based on its interpretation of this court's decision in State v. Sparklin, supra . The Court of Appeals misinterpreted the Sparklin decision. In prohibiting police interrogation of a defendant after the appointment or retention of counsel, this court was careful in Sparklin to note that [a] defendant may, of course, volunteer statements, but this must be on his own initiative and not in response to questioning. 296 Or. at 93, 672 P.2d 1182. In support of this proposition, the court cited State v. Beaver, 248 Or. 101, 432 P.2d 509 (1967), wherein the defendant, after appointment of counsel, initiated contact with the police and confessed. The same form of initiation occurred here when, according to the trial court's findings, defendant asked Colleen Crume to contact the police so that he could give a full statement of his involvement in the crime. Sparklin affirmed the continuing validity of Beaver under the Oregon Constitution. The fact that defendant went through a private intermediary to initiate his contact with the police in no way rendered his initiation ineffective. The defendant in Beaver employed a similar third party, a jailer. Both the defendant here and in Beaver decided to speak with the police without any request on the part of the police. By doing so, the defendant volunteer[ed] statements    on his own initiative and not in response to questioning. State v. Sparklin, supra, 296 Or. at 93, 672 P.2d 1182; see State v. Beaver, supra ; see also State v. Kell, 303 Or. 89, 734 P.2d 334 (1987). The statements made by this defendant to the police did not violate any Oregon statute, state constitutional provision or federal constitutional provision. The Court of Appeals is reversed, and the trial court judgment is reinstated. GILLETTE, J., filed a concurring opinion. LINDE, J., filed a dissenting opinion.