State v. Dean
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
720 August 4, 2021 No. 569 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERNEST LEE DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court CR1400822; A167339 Robert D. Herndon, Judge. Submitted December 30, 2019. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 313 Or App 720 (2021) 721 PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, defendant raises four assignments of error. Defendant argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress the confession he made, which he asserts was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights; (2) in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an inventory search of his wallet; (3) by instructing the jury that it could reach a nonunanimous verdict; and (4) by accepting nonunanimous jury verdicts. Miranda violation. Defendant’s Miranda rights were violated and his waiver of those rights was not voluntary; the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements obtained from the interrogation; and the erroneous admission of the statements was not harmless. See State v. Dean, 309 Or App 249, 481 P3d 322 (2021) (holding same in related case involving same interrogation). Inventory search. Defendant argues that the inventory search of his wallet was unlawful. We reject that argument. State v. Mundt/Fincher, 98 Or App 407, 780 P2d 234, rev den, 308 Or 660 (1989). Nonunanimous jury verdicts. Because we reverse and remand the judgment on the basis that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating statements, we need not reach defendant’s assignments of error that rely on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). Reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
