State v. Hurtado-Navarrete

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-11-2013
  • Case #: A144965
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Before Ortega, P.J., Haselton, C.J., and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Police are not required to re-advise a defendant of his Miranda rights when he has been provided Miranda rights on multiple occasions including two the day before the statements were made.

Defendant was convicted for the murder of his girlfriend, second-degree abuse of her corpse, and unlawful use of a weapon. On appeal, the only issue addressed by the Court was whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police by Defendant. Defendant argued that his rights against self-incrimination were violated because he was not read Miranda rights before questioning by police. Defendant initiated contact with police when he reported his girlfriend and her vehicle missing. Defendant then engaged with police 15 more times regarding his missing girlfriend, before making the statements at issue. The victim's body was discovered by police and on that day Defendant called police to his residence to discuss her whereabouts. Before arriving, police advised Defendant via phone of his right to have an attorney present, but Defendant declined. During the subsequent discussions with police, Defendant confessed to the murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was in custody when he confessed and should have been given a Miranda warning. Defendant had been issued multiple Miranda warnings, including two the day before, and had previously exercised his right to counsel during questioning. Although a Miranda warning was not issued immediately preceding Defendant’s confession, the Court found that Defendant "knew and understood his rights," and the prior Miranda warnings remained valid. Affirmed.

Advanced Search