State v. Shirley
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.
The state petitions for reconsideration of our holding that the police officers in this case were required to advise defendant of his Miranda rights under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution before questioning him further because of the compelling circumstances that existed at the time. State v. Shirley, 221 Or App 12, 188 P3d 410 (2008). In the state’s view, our reasoning is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 175 P3d 454 (2007). We allow reconsideration and adhere to our former opinion as clarified.
We recite the pertinent facts from…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. Roble-BakerOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. ShaffOregon Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. NorthcuttCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- State v. AcunaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- State v. MattheisenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015