are “fairly supported by the record.” Id. at 227; accord State v. Lovaina-Burmudez, 257 Or App 1, 13-14, 303 P3d 988, rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013). It is not sufficient for the state to simply show that evidence “might or could have been otherwise obtained.” Miller, 300 Or at 226 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the evidence at issue is “well concealed,” the state must make a “more exact showing” of how the discovery would have occurred. Id. at 227. The trial court did not make clear which of the state’s arguments supported its conclusion that police “did not exploit” defendant’s confession to the US Bank robbery. Accordingly, we do not defer to implicit factual findings because no such findings were “necessary” to the trial court’s conclusion. See Pereida-Alba, 356 Or at 670-71 (<HOLDING>). Thus, our task is to determine whether the
holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case