- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 12-28-2017
- Case #: A161281
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J.; & Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Youth appealed from a juvenile court judgment, which held that the court had jurisdiction over Youth "for acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135." Youth assigned error to the court's denial of a motion to suppress. On appeal, Youth argued that the contested statements should have been suppressed as she had not been properly mirandized prior to making them. In response, State countered that the judgment should be affirmed, on an alternative basis, as Youth was given a Miranda warning hours prior to making the contested statement. In order to affirm on an alternative basis: (1) "the facts of record be sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance;" (2) "the trial court’s ruling be consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance;" (3) "the record materially be the same one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below." Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-660 (2001). The Court of Appeals held that it would be improper to affirm on the alternative basis proffered by State, as Youth likely would have "developed different arguments" at trial, resulting in a materially different record. Reversed and remanded.