State v. Prieto-Rubio

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 04-02-2014
  • Case #: A152033
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Garret, J. for the court; Duncan, P.J.; and Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Police must notify a Defendant's attorney before interviewing him or her about separate but factually related offenses when he or she has obtained representation in one of the cases.

Defendant appealed convictions for sexual offenses against three victims which were all extended family members. He argued the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made, during police interrogation without counsel present, was in error. The statements in question were made to police during a jailhouse interview. Defendant was being held in relation to his first victim and being questioned about the remaining two victims. He was represented in the first victim's case, but the police did not contact Defendant's attorney before this interview. The Court held there was a sufficient nexus between the three events and, therefore, they were factually related. Police should have notified Defendant's attorney before interviewing him about factually related events. Due to the fact Defendant's Constitutional right to counsel was violated, the statements should have been suppressed. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search