Summary
answering police questions following Miranda warnings is evidence of waiver of rights under Article I, section 12
Summary of this case from State v. NicholsOpinion
Argued February 7, 1969
Affirmed April 16, 1969
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.
EDWARD LEAVY, Judge.
J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Ralph T. Aldave, Deputy District Attorney, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Leahy, District Attorney, Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, Presiding Justice, and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
The defendant was caught at about 4:00 a.m. inside a market. At the jail, at about 11:00 a.m., after the officer had informed him of his constitutional rights, the defendant told the officer he broke into the market and was gathering up food and drink for a picnic. These admissions were offered into evidence over defendant's objection. The defendant was found guilty of burglary not in a dwelling.
The defendant contended he was drunk or "hung over" when the officer questioned him and the defendant did not understand or waive his rights. The trial court stated: "It's the finding of the Court that the requirements of the Escobedo case and the Neely case and the Miranda case have been satisfied."
We have held that whether or not an accused understood the warnings is a matter of historical fact and if there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding that the accused did understand, the finding will stand. State v. Breen, 250 Or. 474, 443 P.2d 624 (1968). There was evidence to support the trial court's finding.
We have also held that the accused's answering the officer's questions after the officer had advised him of his rights is evidence of waiver. State v. Wright, 251 Or. 121, 444 P.2d 912 (1968); State v. Matt, 251 Or. 134, 444 P.2d 914 (1968).
Affirmed.