Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

318 Or. App. 659

State v. Tidwell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 30, 2022

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2022-03-30

Reversed and remanded · Decided 2022-03-30

                                659

  Argued and submitted March 4, reversed and remanded March 30, 2022


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                ROGER ALLEN TIDWELL,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Deschutes County Circuit Court
                    17CR09203; A173011
                             
507 P3d 356


  Raymond D. Crutchley, Judge.
  Andrew D. Coit argued the cause and filed the briefs for
appellant.
   Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
   Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Joyce, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Reversed and remanded.
660                                          State v. Tidwell

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of
one count of sexual abuse in the third degree, one count of
sexual abuse in the first degree, and one count of unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree, raising multiple assignments of error. Defendant’s second assignment
of error obviates the need to address any of the others. In
that assignment, he argues that police officers unlawfully
entered his room, where he was lying in bed, and threw back
the sheets covering him. The state concedes that the warrantless entry into the room was unlawful, and we accept
the concession. The trial court erred in failing to suppress
evidence found by the officers as a result of their unlawful
entry of the room, including observations of defendant in the
room, as well as statements he made in the room.
         The parties on appeal agree that the proper remedy
is a remand for a new trial, at which time the other issues
raised on appeal, including the admissibility of defendant’s
subsequent statements at the police station, can be litigated.
We do not reach those issues here, and our resolution has no
preclusive effect on the further development of those issues
on retrial.
        Reversed and remanded.

/318/orapp/659 · .json · Public domain