Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Cochell
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 24, 1982No. 18,379, CA A23010Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Hoomissen, J.
The majority states that the issue is whether a 13-year-old child was in custody for Miranda purposes at the time he was questioned. That frames the issue too narrowly.
Miranda speaks not only to questioning when a person is in actual custody, but also to questioning when a person is in any significant way deprived of his freedom by police action. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 444, 447-48, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); see also State v. Roberti, 293 Or 59, 644 P2d 1104, 293 Or 236, 646 P2d 1341 (1982). The state has the burden of proof on that question. State v. Wheeler, 43 Or App…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. BayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- State v. PazCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.