State v. Nickles, 451 P.3d 624

Defendant built a homemade device by filling an empty CO2 cartridge with reloading powder, attaching a fuse, lighting it, and attempting to throw it into a lake; it detonated in his hand and caused severe hand injuries.
Officer Floyd interviewed defendant at the hospital; defendant confessed and described the device as metal-cased and intended to be thrown into the water.
Floyd characterized the device at trial as a “field expedient hand grenade” and testified that a metal casing and the powder used made it unlikely to be a lawful pyrotechnic/firework.
Defendant was charged with unlawful manufacture and unlawful possession of a destructive device; the trial court granted acquittal on the manufacture count but denied the motion as to possession; the jury convicted on possession.
On appeal defendant argued the confession was uncorroborated and therefore could not be used to sustain the conviction; the state relied on defendant’s injuries and Floyd’s testimony as corroboration.
The Court of Appeals held the state failed to produce independent corroborating evidence that criminal activity caused the injuries and reversed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state produced legally sufficient corroboration so the confession could be used to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of a destructive device	Defendant’s severe hand injuries and Officer Floyd’s description of the device corroborated the confession and showed a destructive device was involved	Injuries could result from lawful fireworks or other noncriminal causes; Floyd’s description derived solely from the confession and is not independent corroboration	Reversed: confession not adequately corroborated; injuries alone do not show criminal conduct and Floyd’s testimony was dependent on the confession and therefore not independent corroboration
Whether testimony based solely on a defendant’s confession can corroborate that confession	Testimony describing the device (metal casing, powder) corroborates confession	Testimony that repeats or depends entirely on the confession cannot independently corroborate it	Held that testimony dependent on the confession cannot serve as independent corroboration (a fact cannot corroborate itself)

State v. Simons, 214 Or App 675 (2007) (confession may be considered only if supported by legally sufficient independent corroboration)
State v. Lerch, 296 Or 377 (1984) ("some other proof" requirement does not demand full proof but requires evidence tending to show a crime occurred)
State v. Moreno, 276 Or App 102 (2016) (corroboration inquiry asks whether evidence apart from confession tends to show the injury occurred and was caused by criminal activity)
State v. Hauskins, 251 Or App 34 (2012) (evidence that depends on the confession cannot corroborate that confession; a fact cannot corroborate itself)
State v. Bluel, 285 Or App 358 (2017) (objects are excluded from "destructive device" when primarily designed for a visible or audible pyrotechnic effect—the defendant's primary purpose matters)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Garrett, 193 Or App 629 (2004) ("pyrotechnic device" refers to commonly known fireworks)