State v. Chappell

── State v. Chappell ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Aoyagi Category: General No. 411 May 13, 2026 593 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZAK CHAPPELL, Defendant-Appellant. Benton County Circuit Court 22CR56670; A184154 Matthew J. Donohue, Judge. Argued and submitted April 7, 2026. James Brewer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. AOYAGI, P. J. Reversed and remanded. 594 State v. Chappell AOYAGI, P. J. Defendant was convicted of driving under the influ- ence of intoxicants (DUII) and reckless driving. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by not suppressing the results of a breath test conducted after his arrest. The trial court suppressed some evidence from the traffic stop based on a Miranda violation, but it denied suppression of the breath-test results, reasoning that that evidence was sufficiently attenuated from the Miranda violation to be admissible. The state does not defend the court’s attenuation ruling, but it cross-assigns error to the threshold conclusion regarding the Miranda violation and argues for affirmance on that basis.1 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress and, accordingly, reverse and remand.2 Facts. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations. In the ensuing interaction, the officer perceived defendant to be intoxicated from alcohol. After questioning defen- dant for a minute or two, the officer decided that the cir- cumstances had become sufficiently compelling to require Miranda warnings. The officer’s giving of the Miranda warnings to defendant was captured on his body camera. As shown in the recording, the officer failed to give the full warnings. The officer’s face is not visible, which makes it impossible to tell exactly what happened at the key moment, but the upshot is that part of the warnings was omitted, and the trial court expressly found that it was not a video glitch.3 Believing that defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights, the officer resumed questioning him and administered field sobriety tests. He then arrested defendant for DUII and reckless driving. At the police sta- tion, defendant was questioned further, and he agreed to a breath test, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .18 percent. 1 The trial court made multiple pretrial rulings on the suppression issues. 2 Defendant pleaded no contest to the DUII and reckless driving charges, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. Having prevailed on appeal, defendant will have the opportunity on remand to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial if he wishes to do so. 3 The officer did not remember omitting anything when he advised defendant of his Miranda rights and could not explain the omission shown by the recording. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 593 (2026) 595 Standard of review. We review the denial of a motion to suppress for legal error. State v. Heise-Fay, 274 Or App 196, 201, 360 P3d 615 (2015). We view the facts consistently with the trial court’s factual findings, so long as they are supported by evidence in the record, and its ultimate deci- sion