Court Opinion

ID: 9578712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:47:42.76683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:16.442527
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the decision of the majority. I specially concur to state my opinion that the decision in this case is not inconsistent with the position I stated in my dissents in State v. Atherton, 242 Or 621, 410 P2d 208, cert den 384 US 1025, 86 S Ct 1982, 16 L Ed2d 1030 (1966); State v. Rosenburger, 242 Or 376, 409 P2d 684 (1966); State v. Sanford, 245 Or 397, 421 P2d 988 (1966); and State v. Whitewater, 251 Or 304, 445 P2d 594, cert den 384 US 1023, 86 S Ct 1946, 16 L Ed2d 1025 (1968).
Unlike the present case, Atherton and SanfordYraA already retained attorneys and consulted with them. In Rosenburger and Whitewater, the indigent defendants had asked the magistrate to appoint counsel but immediately after their requests and before counsel could be appointed the police interrogated the defendants.