Court Opinion

ID: 9854593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:09:42.366984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:10.209803
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from that part of the majority decision holding that Chief Hollowell’s testimony of admissions made to him by the defendant was admissible. I realize that a majority of this court decided contrary to my position in State v. Rosenburger, 242 Or 376, 409 P2d 684 (1966). In my opinion the evidence in this case is another good illustration of why that decision should be overruled. I understand State v. Rosenburger, supra (242 Or 376), to decide that although ah accused in custody has asked the court to have an attorney appointed and the court has so ordered, the *309police may continue to interrogate, and if the accused succumbs to the interrogation and talks, his answers are admissible.
The police chief stated:
“A: If the Court appointed attorney was represented—representing him, I doubt very much there was time lapsed enough for an appointment of the attorney.
“Q: So you hurried up there to talk to him before counsel was appointed?
“A: In fact, we talked, I escourted [sic] him to the District Court to fill out the affidavit for requesting a court appointed attorney. I escourted [sic] him back to the county jail and at that time I asked him if he would be willing to talk to me about the matter, and he indicated it—
“Q: I don’t want to know what he indicated now.
“A: All right.
■‘Q: Don’t volunteer what he indicated.
“A: And, we proceeded to talk about the matter right from the District Court to the county jail and into the attorney’s room inside the county jail.”
The right of an accused to have an attorney and to be advised that he has the right to have an attorney present at his interrogation seem to me to be of little consequence if we continue to follow the Bosenburgerrule.
O’Connell, J., joins in this dissent.