State v. Beltran-Solas
277 Or. App. 665
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police obtained a warrant to search a house for methamphetamine-related evidence; the warrant did not authorize a weapons search.
- Defendant lived in the house with extended family members, including three minors (two were in DHS custody; one was the child of an adult child).
- During the search officers found a handgun in defendant’s bedroom; Detective Carney interviewed defendant about a prior menacing charge for which counsel had been appointed.
- Carney asked about the prior menacing incident (a shotgun); after defendant said he used a “toy gun,” Carney told him a gun had been found and asked if there were more weapons. Defendant replied that two rifles were hidden in the attic; officers recovered them.
- Defendant was convicted of three counts of felon in possession (three guns) and three counts of endangering the welfare of a minor (ORS 163.575), among other drug offenses. He moved to suppress the rifles and for acquittal on the child-endangerment counts; both motions were denied at trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carney’s post-warrant questioning violated Article I, §11 and required suppression of defendant’s admissions and the rifles found as a result | Carney’s questions about the rifles were independent of the earlier, counsel-triggering questioning and thus lawful; the state conceded the initial menacing-questioning violated §11 but contended the later questions were separable | Carney’s questioning about the menacing charge triggered the Sparklin rule; the subsequent admission about rifles was fruits of that unlawful interrogation and must be suppressed | The questioning was part of the same §11-violative interrogation; defendant’s admissions and the two attic rifles should have been suppressed. Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions for endangering the welfare of a minor under ORS 163.575(1)(b) (permitting minors to be in a place where controlled-substance activity occurred) | The presence of minors in the house and the family context permitted a rational factfinder to infer defendant allowed them to be there (state pointed to family photos showing defendant prominently) | Under State v. McBride, the state must prove affirmative conduct by defendant that authorized or made possible the minors’ entry/remain; record lacks evidence defendant had authority or engaged in such conduct | Evidence insufficient under McBride: no proof defendant authorized or had control over the house or the children’s presence. Convictions on Counts 8, 9, and 10 reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparklin v. State, 296 Or. 85 (1983) (appointment/retained counsel bars interrogation about the charged offense unless counsel is notified and given reasonable opportunity to attend)
- Staunton v. State, 79 Or. App. 332 (1986) (evidence derived from §11-prohibited interrogation must be suppressed unless obtained by separate means)
- State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or. 16 (2016) (Sparklin applies when it is reasonably foreseeable that interrogation will elicit incriminating information about the charged offense)
- State v. McBride, 352 Or. 159 (2012) (to prove ‘‘permit’’ under ORS 163.575(1)(b) state must show affirmative conduct by defendant authorizing or making possible minors’ presence)
- State v. Bailey, 356 Or. 486 (2014) (appellate review standards for suppression rulings)
- State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (1994) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on judgment of acquittal)