State v. Roberti, 646 P.2d 1341 (Or. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Roberti, 646 P.2d 1341 (Or. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
133 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Berkemer v. McCarty (scotus, 1984-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berkemer v. McCarty (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
App. 1977) ( Miranda applies when there is probable cause to arrest the driver and the policeman "consider[s] the driver] to be in custody and would not . . . let him leave"); State v. Roberti, 293 Ore., at 236, 646 P. 2d, at 1341 ( Miranda applies as soon as the officer forms an intention to arrest the motorist); People v. Ramirez, 199 Colo. 367, 372, n. 5 , 609 P. 2d 616, 618, n. 5 (1980) (en banc); State v. Darnell, supra, at 629-630 , 508 P. 2d, at 615 (driver is "in custody" for Miranda purposes at least by the time he is asked to take a field sobriety test); Commonwealth v. Meyer, supra,…
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. White (5×)
Or. · 1984 · confidence medium
One member of the final majority, Judge Linde, in dissenting in the initial decision, drew particular attention to the proposition that judicial decisions should afford to the police officer guidelines that tell him how he is to comport himself in the field investigating crime. 293 Or at 91, 644 P2d at 1123 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Swader (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Roberti, 293 Or 236 , 646 P2d 1341 (1982), vacated and rem’d sub nom Oregon v. Roberti, 468 US_, 104 S Ct 3574 , 82 L Ed 2d 873 (1984), on remand former opinion withdrawn 298 Or 412 , 693 P2d 27 (1984); State v. White, 297 Or 302 , 685 P2d 983 (1984).
examined Cited "see" State v. Barmon (4×)
Or. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59 , 644 P.2d 1104 , 293 Or. 236 , 646 P.2d 1341 (1982); State v. Paz, 31 Or.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hackworth (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. White, 297 Or 302 , 685 P2d 983 (1984); see also State v. Roberti, 293 Or 236 , 646 P2d 1341 (1982), remanded 468 US _ (1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Cochell (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 444, 447-48 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); see also State v. Roberti, 293 Or 59 , 644 P2d 1104 , 293 Or 236 , 646 P2d 1341 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Rehearing/Petitioner on Review,
v.
GARY PATRICK ROBERTI, Petitioner on Rehearing/Respondent on Review
TC T79-12-0348, CA 18838, SC 27840.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jun 22, 1982.
646 P.2d 1341
J. Michael Alexander and Brown, Burt, Swanson, Lathen & Alexander, Salem, for the petitioner., No appearance contra.
Lent, Denecke, Tanzer, Campbell.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published
[*238] LENT, J.

Upon defendant’s petition for rehearing, Justice Roberts withdraws her former concurring opinion and joins in Justice Lent’s former dissenting opinion, which had been joined by Justice Peterson. Justice Linde also joins in the former dissenting opinion of Justice Lent for the reasons stated in Justice Linde’s former dissenting opinion. The result is that a majority of the court now holds that the trial court erred in overruling the objection to receipt of the evidence as described in the former majority opinion, State v. Roberti, 293 Or 59, 62-63, 644 P2d 1104, 1106-07 (1982).

It remains to consider whether the error, beyond a reasonable doubt, was harmless. Chapman v. California, 386 US 18, 87 S Ct 824, 17 LEd 2d 705 (1967); Or Const Art VII (Amend), § 3; State v. Naylor, 291 Or 191, 196, 629 P2d 1308, 1310 (1981). In announcing his decision as factfinder, the trial judge stated:

“Well, I listened to this carefully and I have to disregard the evidence put in by the state on the breath test. But all in all, I’m convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was under the influence of intoxicants at the time based on the weaving which the officer testified to, the count backwards which he said he had all fouled up, the balance he said wasn’t very good, and the defendant himself — when asked to rate himself between zero and ten whether sober to real drunk — said a ‘low 5.’ That indicates to me that he thought himself that he was somewhat affected. So the finding will be guilty of the charge.”

We find, as did the Court of Appeals, that the trial court error was not harmless.

It follows that the decision of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for trial.

Chief Justice Denecke and Justices Tanzer and Campbell dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Tanzer’s former majority opinion.