442 P.3d 224
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Deputy Ross responded to a dispute at an RV park, spoke with defendant at his mobile home, and smelled alcohol; interactions were recorded on body camera.
- Ross asked whether defendant had driven; defendant made equivocal statements (denying driving intoxicated, then saying he "drove around").
- Ross arrested defendant for DUII; at trial the state relied in part on defendant's out-of-court statements.
- Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) arguing the state lacked corroboration for any confession/admission that he drove; the trial court denied the MJOA, concluding the statements were admissions, not confessions.
- After the denial, defendant requested UCrJI 1050 (confession/corroboration jury instruction); the court refused, instead instructing on admissions and voluntariness.
- Jury returned a guilty verdict; defendant appealed only the refusal to give UCrJI 1050, arguing the jury should decide whether the statements were confessions requiring corroboration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether, after the trial court ruled the defendant's statements were admissions (not confessions) in denying an MJOA, the trial court must still give UCrJI 1050 so the jury can decide corroboration | State: The court correctly characterized the statements as admissions; no corroboration instruction required once court decides as a matter of law there was no confession | Defendant: Even after the MJOA denial, the jury should be permitted to decide whether statements were admissions or confessions and, if confessions, whether corroborated; UCrJI 1050 was warranted | The court held the trial court did not err: once the court lawfully determined the statements were admissions (not confessions), no confession/corroboration instruction (UCrJI 1050) was required; the court properly instructed on admissions and voluntariness and affirmed the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 103 Or. App. 436, 797 P.2d 1072 (Or. Ct. App. 1990) (distinguishes admissions from confessions for corroboration analysis)
- Manzella v. State, 306 Or. 303, 759 P.2d 1078 (Or. 1988) (confession defined as post‑offense acknowledgment of guilt; admissions are excluded from corroboration rule)
- McDowell v. United States, 687 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2012) (corroboration treated as a task for the judge; no obligation to instruct jury on corroboration)
- United States v. Howard, 179 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 1999) (trial judge need not give special corroboration instruction; general burden and reasonable doubt instructions suffice)
- United States v. Dickerson, 163 F.3d 639 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (corroboration often resolved by court; jury instructions on burden of proof generally adequate)