Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Pollard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 25, 1995No. C920219CR; CA A77376Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiggs, J.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court properly denied defendant’s demurrer to the indictment. However, because I believe that defendant’s admissions were not induced by implied promises of leniency, I respectfully dissent.

The only point of disagreement here is whether Detective Gossman’s statements “reasonably can be construed as impliedly promising that defendant would get treatment instead of incarceration if he admitted the criminal charges.” State v. Capwell, 64 Or App 710, 715, 669 P2d 808 (1983). (Emphasis supplied.) I believe that Gossman’s statements to defendant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. ElyOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  2. State v. LinnOregon Supreme Court · 1946
  3. State v. CapwellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. State v. NeblockCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API