concluding that police officer’s statement that the courts and district attorney would not "crucify" the defendant was not a promise of immunity when the defendant was told he would be prosecuted
Summary of this case from State v. Chavez-MezaAugust 27, 1985.
concluding that police officer’s statement that the courts and district attorney would not "crucify" the defendant was not a promise of immunity when the defendant was told he would be prosecuted
Summary of this case from State v. Chavez-Mezaconcluding that, where the defendant had expressly been told that "there would be charges," regardless of whether he admitted to certain conduct, the district attorney's statement that he would not " ‘crucify’ " the defendant if he confessed did not amount to a promise of leniency
Summary of this case from State v. HogelandFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Aug 27, 1985
Argued and submitted December 7, 1984 Reversed and remanded April 17, 1985 Reconsideration denied June 5,…
State v. SpielerA "simple promise of treatment does not, by itself, render an admission involuntary." State v. Pollard, 132…