From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mathiason

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 12, 1975
22 Or. App. 494 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 5838

Argued August 20, 1975

Affirmed September 10, 1975 Reconsideration denied October 15, 1975 Petition for review allowed November 12, 1975

Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County.

HENRY KAYE, Judge.

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and FORT, Judges.

AFFIRMED.


Defendant, having been convicted of burglary in the first degree, contends that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the police because his original admission was the result of custodial interrogation not preceded by advice of his Miranda rights. We find no error.

Defendant came voluntarily to the police station at the request of the state trooper. He was free to leave at any time. The mere fact that a suspect is questioned in a police station or in a police car does not necessarily mean that he is being subjected to custodial interrogation. Freije v. United States, 408 F.2d 100, 102 (1st Cir), cert denied 396 U.S. 859 (1969); State v. Travis, 250 Or. 213, 441 P.2d 597 (1968); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brown, 19 Or. App. 427, 528 P.2d 569 (1974), Sup Ct rev denied, cert denied 421 U.S. 1003, 44 L Ed 2d 672 (1975). The historical facts set forth in the trial court's ruling are supported by the record and we regard them as settled. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968).

In the course of the interrogation which preceded defendant's admission the state trooper questioning defendant falsely told the defendant that his fingerprints had been found at the burglary scene. While such information is relevant evidence going to the issue of voluntariness, it does not conclusively demonstrate lack of voluntariness. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S Ct 1420, 22 L Ed 2d 684 (1969); State v. Oakes, 19 Or. App. 284, 527 P.2d 418 (1974).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Mathiason

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 12, 1975
22 Or. App. 494 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

State v. Mathiason

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CARL RAY MATHIASON, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 12, 1975

Citations

22 Or. App. 494 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
539 P.2d 1122

Citing Cases

State v. Mathiason

Reversed and remanded. (See 75 Adv Sh 3132, 22 Or. App. 494 for original opinion) DENECKE,…

State v. Paz

Finally, we look to whether a defendant freely and voluntarily accompanied police to the place of his…