Court Opinion

ID: 9616087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:43:28.30976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:35.562801
License: Public Domain

*406DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
The accused had retained an attorney and had been advised by that attorney, all of which was known to the state. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there can be no interrogation except in the presence of counsel or upon the clear termination of the attorney-client relationship. My views are set out in my dissent in State v. Atherton, 242 Or 621, 629, 410 P2d 208 (1966). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L ed2d 694 (1966), appears to me to support my conclusion.
Sloan, J., joins in this dissent.