State v. Dean

                                 720

   Submitted December 30, 2019, reversed and remanded August 4, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                   ERNEST LEE DEAN,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Clackamas County Circuit Court
                   CR1400822; A167339
                             

  Robert D. Herndon, Judge.
   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 

 (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, 

, 

 (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, 

, 

,
rev den, 

 (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, 

,

, 

 (2020).
        Reversed and remanded.