State v. Monaco

1

336 Or.App. 684

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RYAN THOMAS MONACO, Defendant-Appellant.

A177164

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 11, 2024

Submitted June 17, 2024

Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR48942; Michael A Greenlick, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. ^[*] AOYAGI, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of murder and other crimes, based on his starting an apartment fire that killed two people. On appeal he raises two assignments of error. First, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements that he made during a four-hour police interrogation. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his demurrer to felony-murder charges, because Oregon's felony-murder statute, ORS 163.115(1)(b), violates federal due process. We conclude that the state met its burden to prove that defendant's statements were voluntary and that the court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. We further hold that Oregon's felony-murder statute does not violate due process. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

The facts are relevant only to the suppression ruling, so we state the facts in accordance with the standard of review for that ruling, deferring to the trial court's explicit and implicit factual findings. State v. Belle, 281 Or.App. 208, 210, 383 P.3d 327 (2016).

Defendant and A began dating in 2013. From approximately 2013 to 2017 they lived together, on and off, in an apartment. They had a volatile relationship that often became physical. In February 2017, defendant assaulted A, and she obtained a restraining order. Despite the restraining order, A frequently invited defendant to the apartment. J and T also lived in the apartment.

On July 22, 2017, A and defendant went to a bar together and got into an argument. A tried to leave the bar without defendant, but defendant blocked her path with his car and demanded that she get in. A complied because she was afraid of what would happen if she did not. Defendant drove to As apartment. Once inside the apartment, defendant went to the bathroom, and A took the opportunity to leave.

A returned to the apartment later that night to see if defendant was still there. As she drove into the parking lot, defendant rear-ended her car with his car. A drove away, but defendant followed her and struck her car multiple times as they drove on the freeway at speeds of 75 to 80 miles per hour. Finally, A slammed on her brakes, and defendant kept driving. A called 9-1-1 at 2:42 a.m. to report the incident, then she drove to her sister's house. Meanwhile, defendant texted and called A repeatedly, begging her to return to the apartment. He told her at least once that he was going to drench her couch in gasoline and light it on fire, and he repeatedly tried to videocall her so she could watch him pour the gasoline.

A short while later, defendant called A and told her that he was "really sorry," that he "really fucked up," and that he was "going to take [his] own life over it." A couple minutes after that, A received a text message from As other sister that As apartment was on fire. A neighbor's surveillance system captured video images of defendant running out of As apartment seconds before the fire erupted at 3:30 a.m. The fire spread quickly. Both J and T died in the fire. A dog and three snakes also died. Around 3:30 a.m., defendant sent A multiple text messages saying that he was so sorry but that A "did this" and had thereby ruined not only defendant's life but also their dogs' lives, their roommates' lives, and As own life.

The arson investigator determined that the fire started in the living room after someone poured accelerant on the couch.

Three days after the fire, the police arrested defendant following a brief pursuit. The arresting officer removed defendant from his vehicle and handcuffed him. Defendant was acting confused, was sweating, and looked like he was about to pass out. Defendant was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where he was given a CT scan and blood and urine tests. Defendant was released from the hospital around 1:00 a.m. He was taken to the Justice Center in Portland, where he slept for the night.

Around noon the following day, Detectives Michaels and Luiz took defendant to an interrogation room. Michaels advised defendant of his Miranda rights, which defendant said that he understood. Michaels asked about defendant's relationship with A, including the event that led her to get a restraining order against him. Defendant agreed that he had a volatile relationship with A but denied ever hitting her. He said that, despite the restraining order, A invited him to the apartment nearly every day.

Michaels asked defendant about the night of the fire. Defendant said that he and A had been at a bar with his coworkers but left the bar after having an argument. They went back to the apartment. While defendant was in the bathroom, A left the apartment and drove away. Defendant said that he then left the apartment, went to his children's mother's house around 2:00 a.m. but found she was not home, and so went to his cousin Larry's house. Michaels asked why defendant texted A to "come home" if he was no longer at the apartment. Michaels also told defendant that surveillance video showed his car parked in front of the apartment at that time. Defendant expressed surprise about the text messages and surveillance video, stating, "That's insane[.]" At various times throughout the interrogation, defendant asked to call his family, and each time the detectives told him that he could call his family once the interrogation was over.

Michaels continued describing evidence that defendant was present at the apartment at the time of the fire. Defendant insisted that he did not remember and did not know why the evidence showed that he was there. Michaels repeatedly said that J's and T's families deserved to know what happened, as did A, that they needed closure, and that defendant being honest about what he did would help them and defendant. At various points, Michaels said to defendant:

"I guess I am trying to emphasize to you that it would probably be actually good for you to kind of talk to me about what happened past this."

"But, you know, we are at the stage where it is basically about helping you through this. And helping the families through this."

"And sometimes, you know, if you really want to talk about how it helps you, if you look at it like this down the road.

And how people are going to view this. And how are they going to view [defendant]."

"But if you will, for this moment, step out of yourself a little bit and think about those other people. And it might help you even. And it will certainly help [the families]."

"[J's and T's] families deserve to know what happened. *** And you are the person that can tell them. And I have been doing this long enough to know that even if—even if it is not something that you want to say. Even if it is something that feels terrible to you. It is still better to say it. And to let them hear it. Than not to. It's better for them. And it's better for you. Even though, alright, it—it's a terrible thing. I mean, I get that it is horrible what happened. But somehow hearing about what happened and why, helps. I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist. I just know that it's true. It helps. And I like to help the families."

The other detective, Luiz, also encouraged defendant to be honest. When Luiz asked about his text messages to A around the time of the fire, defendant said that, if he really did start the fire, then he needed to figure it out with a doctor because there was "something missing in [his] head." Luiz told defendant that it was his chance to be honest and that a jury, the judge, the prosecutor, and the families would know if he was honest:

"And you know what they are going to see, is they are going to see [you]. And they are going to see [you] being honest. Or not being honest. And here is your opportunity to be honest. So they say, this guy made a really bad mistake. But he stood up for it. And he was honest about it.

"A jury is going to know that. The judge is going to know that. The prosecutor is going to know that. The family is going to know that.

"But it's all about honesty at this point. Nobody is going to believe that you didn't remember that event. Nobody. I don't believe it. [Michaels] doesn't believe it."

Defendant asked to speak with Michaels alone. Defendant then admitted to getting a gas can from his car and pouring a small amount of gasoline on the couch. He admitted to leaving the gas can on the couch, going to the front door, and lighting a cigarette. Defendant said that the cigarette lighter must have ignited the gasoline fumes. He said that he never intended to start a fire and only wanted to set it up "like a scene" for A to see the couch covered in gasoline when she got home. Michaels told defendant that it was impossible for the couch to ignite by lighting a cigarette from that distance. Defendant maintained that he did not intentionally light the couch on fire.

After about four hours, the interrogation ended.

Defendant was charged with numerous crimes relating to the fire. Before trial, he moved to suppress his statements to the police as not voluntary under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.425. The court held a hearing, at which...