State v. Ward
367 Or. 188 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When police violate a suspect's invoked right to remain silent under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, the state bears a heavy burden to prove a subsequent waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, which includes considering the tainting effect of the initial violation and any intervening period of incarceration without counsel.
Facts:
- Micus Duane Ward, a 19-year-old with intellectual disabilities, flew to Oregon at the request of his cousin, Joda Cain.
- Ward and Cain went to the home of Cain's great-grandmother, the victim.
- A witness at the home later awoke to hear the victim screaming, Ward demanding money, Cain saying, 'Just do it,' and sounds consistent with an attack.
- The next morning, police found the victim beaten to death and discovered her car was missing.
- Police later apprehended Cain and Ward after a high-speed chase in the victim's car.
- At the Union County Jail, after being read his Miranda rights, Ward gave a negative response when asked if he would talk, unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent.
- Officers ignored Ward's invocation and continued the interrogation.
- Ward was then held in the jail for four days without being provided access to counsel before being interrogated a second time by different detectives from Washington County.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oregon indicted Micus Duane Ward for aggravated and felony murder in Washington County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Ward filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements made during two custodial interrogations.
- The trial court granted the motion as to the first interrogation but denied it as to the second.
- Following a trial, a jury found Ward guilty, and the court sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
- Ward, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Ward, as petitioner on review, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the state prove that the defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Article I, section 12, rights before a second custodial interrogation, given that police had previously violated his unequivocally invoked right to remain silent and then held him for four days without access to counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Flynn, J.
No. Under the totality of the circumstances, the state failed to meet its heavy burden to prove that Ward made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his rights before the second interrogation. The initial police failure to 'scrupulously honor' Ward's invocation of his right to remain silent created a presumption that any subsequent waiver was involuntary. This taint was not overcome by the passage of time or fresh warnings, because several factors weighed against a valid waiver: 1) the initial violation likely created the impression that asserting one's rights was meaningless; 2) Ward was held incommunicado for four days without counsel, diluting any curative effect of the time gap; 3) the new Miranda warnings were given four to five hours before the interrogation began, undermining their effectiveness; and 4) the state failed to provide a complete record of the initial illegal interrogation, creating a failure of proof on its part.
Dissenting - Balmer, J.
Yes. The trial court's finding of a valid waiver should be affirmed because the state did prove the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Court of Appeals correctly analyzed the circumstances, noting the four-day break in time, the administration of fresh Miranda warnings by new officers, and the fact that the initial violation was not particularly flagrant or coercive. The totality of these circumstances was sufficient to dissipate any taint from the first interrogation. Furthermore, even if the admission of the statements was an error, it was harmless given the overwhelming independent evidence of Ward's guilt, including physical evidence and witness testimony, making it unlikely the statements affected the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for the state to prove a valid waiver of Article I, section 12 rights following a prior violation. It establishes that a mere passage of time and fresh warnings may be insufficient to cure the taint, especially if the defendant is held in continuous custody without access to counsel. The court's focus on the 'heavy burden' placed on the state and the potential for a prior violation to make a defendant feel that asserting rights is 'meaningless' strengthens protections against coercive interrogation tactics. This ruling makes it more difficult for prosecutors to use statements from subsequent interrogations where police failed to honor the suspect's initial invocation of rights.
