From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Austin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 5, 1970
465 P.2d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Argued January 23, 1970

Affirmed February 5, 1970

Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County.

DONALD A. W. PIPER, Judge.

J. Marvin Kuhn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Jim G. Russell, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Jacob B. Tanzer, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and FOLEY, Judges.


AFFIRMED.


Defendant was found guilty by a jury of attempted burglary. He appeals claiming violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Defendant was arrested near the scene of a reported burglary. He was twice given the Miranda warnings ( Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974 (1966)), and he declined to say anything. Five or ten minutes later, after defendant had been booked, an officer asked him if he wanted to make a phone call. The officer testified that he answered by saying that he did not, and then proceeded to volunteer to the policeman "that we 'had him' that he knew that he had done wrong by breaking into the Pastime * * *." This statement by defendant was admitted in evidence over defendant's objection and he assigns this as error.

If an accused indicates at any time prior to or during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. Miranda v. Arizona, supra. However, "Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment * * *." Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 US at 478; State v. Joseph, 252 Or. 610, 451 P.2d 468 (1969); State v. Hill, 245 Or. 510, 422 P.2d 675 (1967).

Here the question asked defendant was not designed to elicit incriminating evidence but to remind defendant of one of his rights. The incriminating part of his answer was not responsive to the question and was purely voluntary. There was no error in admitting the statements.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Austin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 5, 1970
465 P.2d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

State v. Austin

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. AUGUSTA JUNIOR AUSTIN, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 5, 1970

Citations

465 P.2d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1970)
465 P.2d 256

Citing Cases

People v. McKee

Volunteered statements do not come within the tenets enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 (…

State v. Stilling

As to the incriminatory statement made coincidentally when the defendant told the officers he did not wish to…