State v. Longjaw, 508 P.3d 27

Hotel surveillance video and eyewitness (hotel security) captured defendant stabbing the victim; surveillance, eyewitness, and later DNA evidence tied defendant to the crime.
Defendant arrested the next day; while in custody he spontaneously said, “Too bad it rained too hard that night and washed away all the DNA evidence.”
Police obtained a warrant for a DNA standard; testing linked defendant to the jacket and to blood associated with the knife; the victim later died and defendant was charged with murder.
Trial court allowed juror-submitted questions; a juror asked whether defendant gave his DNA “willingly,” the detective replied “No,” and then confirmed police obtained a warrant.
Defendant was convicted and appealed, arguing (1) his DNA remark was the product of unlawful interrogation and (2) the juror question and detective’s answer impermissibly commented on his exercise of constitutional rights.

Issue	State's Argument	Longjaw's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s custody remark about DNA was an admissible spontaneous statement or the product of interrogation	Statement was unprompted and not elicited by police; admissible under Innis standard	Statement was prompted by police conduct and should be suppressed as the product of interrogation	Court: Admissible — statement was unprompted; no interrogation under Rhode Island v. Innis and Oregon precedent
Whether allowing a juror question about whether defendant gave his DNA willingly (and the officer’s “No” answer) improperly invited an inference from defendant’s invocation of rights	Conceded question was “problematic,” but argued testimony showed a warrant was obtained and that overwhelming evidence made any error harmless	Juror question and officer’s answer impermissibly highlighted defendant’s unwillingness to consent and created a forbidden inference of consciousness of guilt; plain error	Court: Plain error occurred—judge should not have asked—but declined to correct (no reversal) because evidence (video, eyewitness, DNA) was overwhelming

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines "interrogation" as words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (Oregon adopts the Innis interrogation test)
State v. Scott, 343 Or. 195 (same test applied under Oregon law)
State v. Smallwood, 277 Or. 503 (admitting evidence of assertion of constitutional rights is usually reversible error)
State v. Banks, 364 Or. 332 (prohibits using refusal to consent as evidence against defendant)
United States v. Sutton, 970 F.2d 1001 (cautions that juror questioning of witnesses is fraught with perils and should be rare)