A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Oregon Appellate Court--August 1, 2018

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson IV • August 13, 2018 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY-Delinquency petition following probation violation Juvenile court erred by revoking probation for conduct that had already led to a juvenile delinquency adjudication. Reversed.

State v. MB 293 Or App 122 (August 1, 2018) (Egan, J.)

EVIDENCE - Impeachable convictions Trial court plainly erred by admitting evidence of a twenty-five year-old conviction as impeachment. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Integrity Properties v. Elkins 293 Or App 152 (August 1, 2018) (Armstrong, J.)

SENTENCING - Consecutive sentences Trial court erred by imposing partially-consecutive sentences for attempted murder and assault constituting domestic violence for hitting the victim repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

State v. Provancha 293 Or App 169 (August 1, 2018) (Hadlock, J.)

JOINDER OF OFFENSES - Failure to allege basis for joinder Failure to allege the basis to join charges is a defect in form that may be cured by amendment without resubmission to grand jury. Affirmed.

‘’State v. Haji 293 Or App 202 (August 1, 2018) (Lagesen, J.)

SENTENCING - Measure 11 escape clause A scar on the victim’s scalp visible six months after the assault was “serious and protracted disfigurement,” which is a “significant physical injury” rendering defendant ineligible for Measure 11 escape-clause treatment. Affirmed.

State v. Kinsey 293 Or App 208 (August 1, 2018) (Tookey, J.)

PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION - Prohibiting family contact on supervision In sex-crimes case, board erred in issuing condition of supervision prohibiting contact between defendant and the “family” of the victims, his nieces. Reversed and remanded.

The board justified its action by explaining that the prohibition was statutorily required, but it was required only as to the victims. Because the board did not purport to exercise discretion as to the victims’ family, the decision could not be upheld as the exercise of discretion. The court noted that it was “skeptical” of a condition prohibiting contact between defendant and his wife and son without explanation.

Ferry v. Bd. of Parole 293 Or App 216 (August 1, 2018) (Aoyagi, J.)