State v. Ruiz-Piza, 325 P.3d 802

Defendant indicted on five counts for allegedly shaking infant daughter G.
Pretrial order granted suppression of statements made during police interviews; interlocutory appeal filed by state.
Interviews occurred at hospital with detectives Hurley and Manus; initial interview described as noncustodial and recorded.
Interrogation included explicit medical condition details and insinuations about medical care depending on confession; third interview emphasized need for an explanation and defense for G.
A 25-minute unrecorded interval followed the initial confession opportunities; later confessions were recorded.
Trial court suppressed statements; this court reviews voluntariness under Oregon law and constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness under ORS 136.425(1) and Oregon Const.	State argues statements were voluntary under statute and Article I, §12.	Burden lies on state to prove voluntariness given coercive conduct.	Voluntariness not met; statements involuntary.
Effect of medical-care framing on voluntariness.	Informing consequences is permissible; no improper threat to care.	Officers exploited medical concerns to pressure confession.	Totality shows inducement through fear; improper pressure found.
Impact of implied promises of leniency.	No explicit promise of leniency; statements legitimate.	Inducements implied by officers' statements and framing.	Implied promises found; voluntariness fails.
Effect of unrecorded interval on reliability of findings.	Gaps do not negate admissibility if totality supports voluntariness.	Gaps may reflect coercive persistence and undermine voluntariness.	Assumed findings consistent with conclusion; totality supports involuntariness.

State v. Mendacino, 288 Or 231 (1979) (confession must be voluntary; test for voluntariness)
State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119 (1991) (preponderance standard for voluntariness; totality of circumstances)
State v. Goree, 151 Or App 621 (1997) (court reviews voluntariness with factual findings supported by evidence)
State v. Pollard, 132 Or App 538 (1995) (inducements and voluntariness; form of inducement not dispositive)
State v. Burks, 107 Or App 588 (1991) (free choice and self-determination in voluntariness analysis)
State v. Benton, 92 Or App 685 (1988) (inducement through fear and vulnerability considerations)
State v. Hovater, 42 Or App 13 (1979) (informing of consequences does not necessarily vitiate voluntariness)
Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 (1968) (presumption of findings consistent with ultimate conclusion)
Foster, 303 Or 518 (1987) (statutory standard for voluntariness prior to constitutional analysis)