State v. Plew

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-06-2013
  • Case #: A143045
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Edmonds, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Where a defendant requests counsel when being interrogated about a crime, and is interrogated by the police about a separate crime that is factually, temporally, and territorially similar, counsel must be present for both interrogations.

Plew appealed convictions of two counts of first-degree burglary under ORS 164.225, as well as the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements about one of the robberies without counsel present. One burglary occurred on March 18, 2009, and the other on March 26, 2009. Defendant requested counsel after being arrested following the March 26th burglary. He was interrogated without counsel present about the March 18th burglary. Defendant argued that the two cases were factually related and he should have had counsel present when interrogated about both burglaries. The Court of Appeals held that because the burglaries were factually, temporally, and territorially similar, the trial court erred when it allowed statements the Defendant made about the March 18th burglary without counsel present. A143046 reversed and remanded; A143045 affirmed.

Advanced Search