State v. Nunez
243 Or. App. 246
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Juan Nuñez was convicted of first‑degree rape and two counts of first‑degree burglary in Oregon.
- Police investigated burglaries at Bolz Road and a rape reported by resident B, with Nuñez known to locals as Pallone and described as Hispanic with a heavy accent.
- Officers encountered Nuñez at his trailer; he spoke English, agreed to accompany an officer to show windows he had looked into, and was not initially handcuffed.
- Pricing officer Price questioned Nuñez at the trailer and later at the station; Miranda warnings were not administered until after a period of questioning, with subsequent questioning in Spanish by Officer Rojas.
- DNA samples were taken after Rojas interviewed Nuñez; the trial court suppressed statements made pre‑warning but allowed post‑warning statements and DNA evidence.
- The trial court held Nuñez was not in compelling circumstances until he was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car; the court denied suppression of pre‑handcuff statements and the DNA, and then the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nuñez was in compelling circumstances before Miranda warnings were given. | Price created a compelling atmosphere before warnings. | Nuñez was in compelling circumstances before handcuffing. | Not compelling until handcuffed; pre‑warning statements admissible. |
| Whether statements to Price before Miranda warnings should be suppressed under Article I, section 12. | Pre‑warning statements were improperly admitted. | Compelling circumstances required suppression without warnings. | Pre‑warning statements suppressed; post‑warning statements and DNA admissible. |
| Whether DNA samples obtained after the post‑warning interrogation are admissible. | DNA admissible as derivative of proper warnings. | DNA inadmissible if initial questioning violated rights. | DNA admissible as derived from post‑warning questioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shaff, 343 Or. 639 (Or. 2007) (relevant to compelling circumstances and totality of the circumstances analysis)
- State v. Magee, 304 Or. 261 (Or. 1987) (establishes Article I, section 12 Miranda‑like warnings are required for custodial interactions)
- State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (Or. 2010) (recognizes right to remain silent and need for knowing waiver in custodial interrogation)
- State v. Roble‑Baker, 340 Or. 631 (Or. 2006) (factors for determining compelling circumstances and police‑dominated atmosphere)
- State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119 (Or. 1991) (legal standard for whether defendant was in compelling circumstances)