Legal Opinion

State v. Saunders

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 2008No. CC C010764CR, C013567CR; CA A119606 (Control), A119607; SC S054822PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have suppressed all the statements that defendant made before the police advised him of his Miranda rights. State v. Saunders, 211 Or App 73, 83, 153 P3d 144 (2007). The Court of Appeals based its decision, in part, on State v. Shaff, 209 Or App 68, 146 P3d 389 (2006), which this court later reversed, State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 175 P3d 454 (2007). Relying on its decision in Shaff, the Court of Appeals reasoned that suppression was required because, at some point during the police interview, the circumstances became compelling within the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. Roble-BakerOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. ShaffOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. ShaffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. State v. SaundersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. SaundersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  2. State v. GrimmCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  3. State v. CourvilleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. Saunders v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API