Court Opinion

ID: 9616438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:46:55.095982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:03.052646
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The issue presented is whether "there was evidence of sufficient historical facts to sustain the trial court’s holding.” State v. Karcher, 252 Or 564, 566, 451 P2d 110 (1969).
When the defendant called the State Police officer, the defendant was asked where it would be convenient to meet and, as defendant had no preference, it was agreed the defendant would go to the State Patrol office. The officer told defendant he was not under arrest. After defendant admitted the theft and was given the Miranda warnings, the officer told him he was not arresting him and that he was free to return to his family. The entire interview lasted only one-half hour.
The defendant did not testify. I believe the above facts are sufficient to support the holding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Without abdicating our responsibility to determine whether the facts meet state and federal constitutional requirements, see Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 443 P2d 621 (1968), I believe that we should give substantial consideration to the findings of the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses. See State v. Pressel, 2 Or App 477, 484-85, 468 P2d 915 (1970) (Schwab, C. J., dissenting).
TONGUE, J. and BRYSON, J., join in this dissent.