Court Opinion

ID: 9611511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:57:32.107066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:15.024283
License: Public Domain

*362SCHWAB, C. J.
dissenting in part.
I agree that the defendant initially invoked his right to remain silent, but that this did not prohibit the officer from continuing to seek routine information such as name, address, height, weight, etc. I agree that defendant’s "You don’t have a case” comment was volunteered and admissible. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the officer’s responsive comments to the defendant were coercive.
When a suspect is in custody, it is possible for an officer’s comments, though not taking the form of questions, to be a subtly coercive quest for incriminating information. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 US 387, 97 S Ct 1232, 51 L Ed 2d 424 (1977); State v. Turner, 32 Or App 61, 573 P2d 326 (1978). In Brewer the police made an emotional appeal about a "Christian burial” for a murder victim. In TurnerUtxe. police suggested the possibility of aid for the prisoner in obtaining treatment for heroin addiction and aid for his family.
The officer in this case did nothing similar. He simply responded to the defendant’s volunteered comment "You don’t have a case” by itemizing the evidence he felt was available to the state. There was no implied question mark at the end of the officer’s statements. Moreover, I do not think the officer’s comments were intended to coerce incriminating responses from the defendant. My estimate of the situation is that the officer rather than the defendant was the one "coerced” into responding.
In sum, we agree on the applicable rule: Brewer and Turner prohibit clandestine interrogation under the guise of casual conversation. But I disagree that anything even approaching clandestine interrogation occurred in this case. The comments of the officer were a natural response to a statement by defendant; they were told, not asked; they were of short duration; and they have no appearance of having been intended as an evidence-gathering mission.
*363I would affirm the burglaiy conviction.
Thornton, Lee and Tanzer, Judges, join in this dissent.