rele- vant inquiry in Oregon

2021Voluntariness Analysis under Oregon Law Article I, section 12, provides that “[n]o person shall be * * * compelled in any criminal prosecution to tes- tify against himself.” Relatedly, ORS 136.425(1) requires that “[a] confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” 4 The rele- vant inquiry, under both authorities, is the voluntariness of defendant’s statements or “whether the state met its burden to prove that defendant’s free

2021Id. at 17 . 830 State v. Center On appeal, the Supreme Court identified the rele- vant inquiry as “whether the state [had] met its burden to prove that [the] defendant’s free will was not overborne and his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired and that he made his statements without inducement from fear or promises.” Id. at 22 .

2022Sjomeling, 251 Or App at 188 .

2021See State v. Wibbens, 238 Or App 737, 741 , 243 P3d 790 (2010) (explaining that whether “admission of hear- say evidence at a probation revocation proceeding violates a probationer’s right to confrontation” involves weighing “the probationer’s interest in confrontation against the govern- ment’s good cause for denying it”); id. at 741-42 (“The rele- vant factors in that analysis include ‘(1) the importance of the evidence to the court’s finding; (2) the probationer’s opportu- nity to refute the evidence; (3) the difficulty and expense of obtaining witnesses; and (4) traditional indicia of reli

2021See State v. Wibbens, 238 Or App 737, 741 , 243 P3d 790 (2010) (explaining that whether “admission of hear- say evidence at a probation revocation proceeding violates a probationer’s right to confrontation” involves weighing “the probationer’s interest in confrontation against the govern- ment’s good cause for denying it”); id. at 741-42 (“The rele- vant factors in that analysis include ‘(1) the importance of the evidence to the court’s finding; (2) the probationer’s opportu- nity to refute the evidence; (3) the difficulty and expense of obtaining witnesses; and (4) traditional indicia of reli

2021See State v. Wibbens, 238 Or App 737, 741 , 243 P3d 790 (2010) (explaining that whether “admission of hear- say evidence at a probation revocation proceeding violates a probationer’s right to confrontation” involves weighing “the probationer’s interest in confrontation against the govern- ment’s good cause for denying it”); id. at 741-42 (“The rele- vant factors in that analysis include ‘(1) the importance of the evidence to the court’s finding; (2) the probationer’s opportu- nity to refute the evidence; (3) the difficulty and expense of obtaining witnesses; and (4) traditional indicia of reli

2021The court held that cases such as State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car et al., 120 Or 254 , 251 P 701 (1927), had established that “the rele- vant inquiry is not whether a newly created statutory claim existed at common law, but whether, because of its nature, it falls ‘within the guarantee of the Constitution’ to a jury trial.” Miramontes, 352 Or at 409 (internal citation omitted).

2021The court held that cases such as State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car et al., 120 Or 254 , 251 P 701 (1927), had established that “the rele- vant inquiry is not whether a newly created statutory claim existed at common law, but whether, because of its nature, it falls ‘within the guarantee of the Constitution’ to a jury trial.” Miramontes, 352 Or at 409 (internal citation omitted).