Opinion
A167339
08-04-2021
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ernest Lee DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, defendant raises four assignments of error. Defendant argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress the confession he made, which he asserts was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights; (2) in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an inventory search of his wallet; (3) by instructing the jury that it could reach a nonunanimous verdict; and (4) by accepting nonunanimous jury verdicts.
Miranda violation . Defendant's Miranda rights were violated and his waiver of those rights was not voluntary; the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion to suppress statements obtained from the interrogation; and the erroneous admission of the statements was not harmless. See State v. Dean , 309 Or. App. 249, 481 P.3d 322 (2021) (holding same in related case involving same interrogation).
Inventory search . Defendant argues that the inventory search of his wallet was unlawful. We reject that argument. State v. Mundt/Fincher , 98 Or. App. 407, 780 P.2d 234, rev. den. , 308 Or. 660, 784 P.2d 1102 (1989).
Nonunanimous jury verdicts . Because we reverse and remand the judgment on the basis that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his incriminating statements, we need not reach defendant's assignments of error that rely on Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020).
Reversed and remanded.