## Facts

- Police responded to a reported domestic dispute at an apartment shared by the defendant and his wife, Lisa.
- Lisa appeared distressed and consented to a search; the officer found traces of methamphetamine in the apartment.
- Shortly thereafter, officers contacted the defendant in the apartment-complex parking lot where he lived.
- Without giving Miranda warnings, an officer asked the defendant about needle marks on his arms; the defendant acknowledged “tracks” and then offered an alternative explanation.
- Lisa overheard and yelled that the defendant was lying and that the marks were from “shooting up” in the bedroom with friends.
- The defendant responded nonverbally by hanging his head and shaking it back and forth.
- The defendant was later charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and endangering the welfare of a minor.
- The trial court denied motions to suppress (1) the defendant’s parking-lot statements and (2) Lisa’s accusation; the evidence was admitted and the defendant was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant was in custody during the parking-lot questioning such that Miranda warnings were required before asking about needle marks.
2. Whether Lisa’s accusatory statement was admissible as (a) an adoptive admission based on the defendant’s nonverbal reaction or (b) an excited utterance exception to hearsay.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the defendant was not in custody during the parking-lot questioning; Miranda warnings were not required and his statements were admissible.
- The court held Lisa’s accusation was not an adoptive admission because the defendant’s head-hanging and head-shaking were too ambiguous to show an intent to adopt the statement.
- The court nonetheless admitted Lisa’s accusation as an excited utterance because it was an immediate, emotional response made while she remained under stress from a startling event.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda safeguards apply only when a reasonable person would understand their freedom to be restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest, assessed objectively under the totality of the circumstances.
- Noncustodial questioning in a familiar, public setting without physical restraint, formal arrest, or a communicated inability to leave generally does not trigger Miranda.
- A statement is an adoptive admission only if the opposing party’s words or conduct manifest an intent to adopt or agree with the statement; equivocal nonverbal reactions are insufficient.
- A hearsay statement may be admitted as an excited utterance when it relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement, supporting reliability through spontaneity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of the defendant’s unwarned parking-lot statements because the encounter was noncustodial, rejected the spouse’s accusation as an adoptive admission due to ambiguous nonverbal conduct, and admitted the accusation as an excited utterance because it was a spontaneous statement made under continuing stress.


State v. Carlson, 311 Or. 201, 808 P.2d 1002 (Or. 1991)