State v. Moore/Coen, 245 P.3d 101

Moore: stop for no seatbelt; trooper notices ammunition; defendant admits a gun; rifle found and presented; defendant in custody; questioned in patrol car without Miranda warnings; pretrial statements suppressed on appeal; conviction for felon in possession of a firearm.
Coen: at accident scene beer observed; hospital interview without Miranda warnings; defendant consents to blood/urine samples after sheriff implied arrest; BAC .25%; evidence from samples and statements challenged; retrial after suppression; DUII diversion program and 1997 DUII conviction later used for state of mind evidence.
Courts below held error in admitting unlawfully obtained pretrial statements; issue whether trial testimony could be used for harmless error review or to rebut the tainted statements; Court of Appeals relied on McGinnis; remands for new trials.
Oregon Supreme Court reverses/affirms in part, concluding no distinction between actual coercion vs. mere lack of warnings for purposes of trial testimony on retrial or harmless error review; rules that unlawfully obtained statements must be excluded and that the defendant’s trial testimony cannot be presumed untainted; addresses OEC 404(4) constitutionality and application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether illegally obtained pretrial statements can be used for harmless error review.	Moore/Coen: statements not actually coerced; trial testimony admissible for harmless error.	Moore/Coen: constitutional violation precludes use of tainted statements; trial testimony tainted; cannot be used to uphold verdict.	No; tainted statements require exclusion unless record shows trial testimony refutes, explains, or qualifies them.
Whether defendant’s retrial testimony must be excluded due to taint from illegally obtained statements.	State: retrial testimony should be admissible if not tainted.	Testimony was elicited to rebut illegal evidence and should be excluded.	Exclusion of retrial testimony is appropriate unless record shows it would not refute or explain the tainted admissions.
Whether OEC 404(4) violates due process and how it interacts with OEC 403 in admitting other-crimes evidence.	State: 404(4) valid; not a due process violation.	404(4) facially/as-applied unconstitutional; lacks reciprocity.	OEC 404(4) facially constitutional; due process not violated; defendant may use other rules (404(3)) to present a complete defense; limiting instructions advised.

State v. McGinnis, 335 Or. 243 (2003) (limits Harrison rule to actually coerced statements; statutory vs. constitutional issue distinct)
State v. Magee, 304 Or. 261 (1987) (Miranda-like warnings required by Article I, section 12)
State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (2010) (reaffirms exclusion of statements regardless of coercion; waiver and warnings)
State v. Simonsen, 319 Or. 510 (1994) (excludes illegally obtained pretrial statements to restore position)
Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968) (rule governing compulsion and use of illegally obtained confessions at trial)
Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973) (due process on reciprocal discovery-like rights; equal access to court procedures)
Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (1967) (limits prejudice from other acts with limiting instructions when probative of element)