2006); State v. Monroe, 103 Idaho 129, 130, 645 P.2d 363 (1982); State v. Herbert, 277 Kan. 61, 70, 82 P.3d 470 (2004); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299, 303 (Minn. 1991); State v. Lynch, 477 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Minn. App. 1991); State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St. 3d 281, 290, 452 N.E.2d 1323 (1983); State v. Kerby, 162 Ohio App. 3d 353, 368, 833 N.E.2d 757 (2005); State v. Crawford, 73 Or. App. 53, 58, 698 P.2d 40 (1985); State v. Barmon, 67 Or. App. 369, 376-77, 679 P.2d 888, petition for review denied, 297 Or. 227, 683 P.2d 91 (1984); State v. McDade, 44 Or. App. 269, 273, 605 P.2d 752 (1980); but see State v. Reeves, 696 So. 2d 226, 230 (La. App. 1997); People v. White, 10 N.Y.3d 286, 290, 886 N.E.2d 156, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534 (2008); Commonwealth v. Franklin, 438 Pa. 411, 415-16, 265 A.2d 361 (1970). We note, however, that in the three instances in which our sister states have reached a decision contrary to our holding in the present case, dissenting justices would have concluded that the defendant was subjected to interrogation.
2006); State v. Monroe, 103 Idaho 129, 130, 645 P.2d 363 (1982); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 70, 82 P.3d 470 (2004); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299, 303 (Minn.1991); State v. Lynch, 477 N. W.2d 743, 746 (Minn.App.1991); State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281, 290, 452 N.E.2d 1323 (1983); State v. Kerby, 162 Ohio App.3d 353, 368, 833 N.E.2d 757 (2005); State v. Crawford, 73 Or.App. 53, 58, 698 P.2d 40 (1985); State v. Barmon, 67 Or.App. 369, 376–77, 679 P.2d 888, petition for review denied, 297 Or. 227, 683 P.2d 91 (1984); State v. McDade, 44 Or.App. 269, 273, 605 P.2d 752 (1980); but see State v. Reeves, 696 So.2d 226, 230 (La.App.1997); People v. White, 10 N.Y.3d 286, 290, 886 N.E.2d 156, 856 N.Y.S.2d 534 (2008); Commonwealth v. Franklin, 438 Pa. 411, 415–16, 265 A.2d 361 (1970).
From the totality of the circumstances we conclude that defendant understood his right to counsel and that he knowingly and intelligently waived this right and proceeded to give his confession. The law enforcement officials "scrupulously honored" his request for his rights in that they ceased their interrogation of him and made no attempt to persuade, threaten, or subtly cajole him into speaking, compare, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S Ct 1232, 51 L Ed 2d 424 (1977); State v. Foster, supra; State v. McDade, 44 Or. App. 269, 605 P.2d 752 (1980); State v. McGrew, 38 Or. App. 493, 590 P.2d 755, rev den 286 Or. 149, cert den 444 U.S. 867 (1979); State v. Rodriguez, 37 Or. App. 355, 587 P.2d 487 (1978), rev den 285 Or. 319 (1979); State v. Johnson, 37 Or. App. 209, 586 P.2d 811 (1978), rev den 285 Or. 479 (1979); State v. Turner, 32 Or. App. 61, 573 P.2d 326 (1978); State v. Paz, 31 Or. App. 851, 572 P.2d 1036 (1977), rev den 282 Or. 189 (1978); State v. Dyke, 19 Or. App. 705, 528 P.2d 1073 (1974); State v. Garrison, 16 Or. App. 588, 519 P.2d 1295, rev den (1974); State v. Suggs, 13 Or. App. 484, 511 P.2d 405 (1973). The statement was admissible.