Oregon Appellate Court, February 26, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception
Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.
An informant arranged for a drug deal with defendant, and police stopped defendant on the way to the sale. In rejecting defendant's argument that police had created their own exigency, the Court of Appeals held that the automobile exception is a simple-per se rule, with no exception for police-created circumstances, and it applied on the facts.
State v. Coleman-Pinning 302 Or App 383 (February 26, 2020) (Armstrong) (Lincoln County, Bachart)
TRIAL PROCEDURE - Mistrials
Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial when witness improperly referred to defendant's sexual fantasies about children and admission that he had touched his own daughters. Affirmed.
Although the evidence was not admissible, it was only referenced once, was not deliberate on the part of the prosecutor, and a curative instruction (which defendant did not seek) would have been adequate. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion.
State v. Oxford 302 Or App 407 (February 26, 2020) (Ortega) (Multnomah County, Dailey)
EVIDENCE - Other-bad-acts
Any error in admitting evidence of prior convictions to show lack of mistake was harmless. Affirmed.
The defendant had offered evidence of his peacefulness and the state properly offered evidence of other-bad-acts in rebuttal, and the court gave a limiting instruction, so any error in admitting other evidence of other-bad-acts was harmless.
State v. Formby-Carter 302 Or App 417 (February 26, 2020) (Tookey) (Linn County, Novotny)
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - Evidence of intent
Trial court did not err in finding that driving car toward police officers showed intent to injure them. Affirmed.
State v. Spieler 302 Or App 432 (February 26, 2020) (Tookey) (Columbia County, Grove)
APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Preservation
Counsel's complaint, that the court's handling of closing argument was unfair, did not preserve argument that it was unlawful. Affirmed.
State v. Stacey 302 Or App 470 (February 26, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Lake County, Nichols)
BAIL - Forfeiture
Court could not enter judgment on bail forfeiture, because defendant was arrested and appeared within 30 days of the forfeiture. Reversed.
The court analyzed the text, context, and legislative history of the statute and concluded that, although an order forfeiting the bail was required, a judgment for that amount was not permitted if the defendant appeared within 30 days.
Mooney, dissenting, would have held that failures to appear and a subsequent arrest would support bail forfeiture.
State v. Snelgrove 302 Or App 485 (February 26, 2020) (Powers, Mooney dissenting) (Washington County, Bailey)
TRIAL PROCEDURE - Indictment and preliminary hearing
Judgment was void, because defendant was not indicted and did not waive indictment. Reversed.
Although counsel said, at arraignment, that the defense was "prepared to waive preliminary hearing at this time," the record did not show that defense counsel consulted with the defendant about that waiver.
State v. Keys 302 Or App 514 (February 26, 2020) (Hadlock) (Marion County, Armstrong)