State v. Norgren

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-02-2017
  • Case #: A159441
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly and intelligently with full awareness of the consequences of the waiver. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 572-73, 34 P3d 673 (2001).

Defendant appealed a conviction for attempted murder and second-degree assault under ORS 163.115 and ORS 163.175.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the statements he made to a deputy sheriff. Defendant argued that he did not voluntarily or knowingly waive his Miranda rights because he was “in the active throes of a psychotic break from reality.” A waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly and intelligently with full awareness of the consequences of the waiver. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 572-73, 34 P3d 673 (2001). The Court of Appeals concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court erred because the record lacked legally sufficient evidence to show Defendant was fully aware of the consequences that comes with waiving Miranda rights. The Court found that the trial court’s error was not harmless to defendant’s case. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search