Legal Opinion

State v. Mathiason

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 10, 1975No. 5838PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchwab, C. J.

Defendant, having been convicted of burglary in the first degree, contends that the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police because his original admission was the result of custodial interrogation not preceded by advice of his Miranda rights. We find no error.

Defendant came voluntarily to the police station at the request of the state trooper. He was free to leave at any time. The mere fact that a suspect is questioned in a police station or in a police ear does not necessarily mean that he is being subjected to custodial interrogation. Freije v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Frazier v. CuppSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State v. TravisOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. for Lane County v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
  5. State v. OakesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. PazCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  2. State v. MathiasonOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. MathiasonOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. PazCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API