State v. Potter
245 Or. App. 1
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- On March 11, 2008 Lane attempted to cash a BTS forged check and fled, leaving the check and ID.
- On March 12, 2008 Potter attempted to cash a forged APF check; police arrested him; an accomplice was arrested later that day.
- Potter was arraigned in the APF case on March 13, 2008; counsel was appointed and he remained in custody until March 27.
- On March 26 Lane was arrested again; Malanaphy questioned Lane and learned Potter created the BTS check.
- On March 28 Malanaphy questioned Potter after Miranda warnings; Potter admitted using a computer to create checks and gave one to Lane.
- Potter moved to suppress the March 28 statements under Article I, section 11; the trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTS and APF are factually related for Sparklin purposes. | State: not factually related; no need to contact counsel. | Potter: factually related; attorney must be contacted. | Yes; they were factually related; suppression reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sparklin, 296 Or. 85, 672 P.2d 1182 (1983) (right to counsel limits questioning about factually related crimes; unrelated matters may be interrogated)
- State v. Staunton, 79 Or.App. 332, 718 P.2d 1379 (1986) (unrelated questioning taints related admissions when tied by facts)
- State v. Hill, 142 Or.App. 189, 921 P.2d 969 (1996) (counsel requirement applies to related circumstances at sentencing contexts)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. O'Farrell, 191 Or.App. 627, 83 P.3d 931 (2004) (examines Sparklin framework beyond 'inextricably intertwined')