371 P.3d 1213
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant and victim exchanged words and fought in a grocery store checkout line; defendant fired one shot, striking the victim in the leg.
- Store loss-prevention personnel handcuffed defendant for safety; EMS immobilized him on a spine board and transported him by ambulance.
- Sergeant Krummenacker rode in the ambulance, read Miranda warnings, began a recorded interview during which defendant at times was coherent and at times disoriented; defendant said he had a gun and hoped he had not shot anyone.
- At the hospital a second recording occurred; defendant said “lawyer” and later requested counsel, after which questioning stopped; only the ambulance recording was introduced at trial.
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault with a firearm; he appealed claiming the ambulance statements should have been suppressed (Miranda/Article I, §12) and that the court erred by refusing his proposed self-defense jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Garrett (Defendant)'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings were required during ambulance questioning (Article I, §12 and Fifth Amendment) | Not required: defendant was not in police custody and restraints were for safety/medical, not law-enforcement; questioning did not create police-dominated, coercive atmosphere. | Warnings ineffective because defendant was disoriented, handcuffed on spine board near armed officer and could not end encounter; statements thus involuntary. | Court held no Miranda requirement in ambulance: restraints were non-police/medical, defendant did not perceive custodial arrest, and questioning was not coercive. |
| Whether failure to suppress ambulance recording violated federal Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments | Federal claims fail for same reasons as state constitutional claim; Miranda protections parallel federal custody analysis. | Cursory federal claim that statements were coerced and prejudicial to self-defense theory. | Court rejected federal claim; no separate error shown. |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing defendant's modified UCrJI 1108 self-defense instruction | Uniform instructions (UCrJI 1107/1108) correctly track statutes and cover self-defense; defendant’s language unnecessary and potentially confusing. | Requested instruction emphasized no duty to wait/retreat and that introducing a firearm does not eliminate later self-defense claim. | Court held refusal proper: uniform instructions adequately covered law; defendant’s special language risked confusion and added nothing necessary. |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument created duty-to-retreat error | Prosecutor’s comment discussed failure to de-escalate leading to fight, not a legal duty to retreat instruction. | Argued prosecutor’s remarks introduced a duty to retreat, undermining self-defense. | Court found no error: remark did not inject duty-to-retreat into jury instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631 (Oregon 2006) (describes when Miranda-like warnings required under Oregon Constitution)
- State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 (Oregon 1987) (explains ‘‘full custody’’ concept for Miranda purposes)
- State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (restraints by non-police/medical immobilization do not automatically create custody)
- State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639 (Oregon 2007) (totality test for ‘‘compelling circumstances’’ and how a reasonable person would perceive the encounter)
- State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552 (Or. Ct. App. 1973) (clarifies that introducing a firearm and later use are distinct events for self-defense analysis)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Fifth Amendment custody analysis for Miranda applicability)