ENTRY FORM | ||
| CALENDAR STATUS: Active | ||
 | | |
SC Number: | | S059620 |
CA Number: | | A141129 |
Case Title: | | State of Oregon v. Lance Franklin Powell |
Date: | | 03/06/2012 |
Time: | | 09:00 AM |
Location: | | Willamette College of Law |
Attorneys: | | Kenneth A. Kreuscher on behalf of Lance Franklin Powell Douglas F. Zier on behalf of the State of Oregon |
Comments: | | |
Statement of Issues: | | State of Oregon v. Lance Franklin Powell (S059620) (A141129) (appeal from Benton County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 242 Or App 645, 256 P3d 185 (2011)). Defendant Lance Franklin Powell has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed in part a trial court ruling suppressing defendant's initial confession, but that also reversed in part a trial court ruling suppressing defendant's subsequent, second confession. On review, the issues are: (1) Does ORS 136.425(1) require the suppression of a second confession if that second confession follows a first confession that was made in response to a promise of leniency, and the second confession: occurs shortly after the first confession and in the same room, involves some of the same people, and was made following renewed indications that the offer of leniency was still "on the table, " but also occurs in the presence of a uniformed police officer who reads defendant his Miranda rights (but describes them as a mere formality)? (2) Does the scope of ORS 136.425(1), which prohibits the use in evidence of a defendant's confession or admissions under certain circumstances, include the suppression of derivative physical evidence and subsequent statements that were the result of interrogators' exploitation of a prior, allegedly involuntary confession? The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20. |
Justice(s) NOT Participating: | ||
Jack L. Landau | ||