Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCING - Separate criminal episodes Trial court erred in finding that separate criminal episodes prevented application of the shift-to-I rule. Remanded for resentencing.
Defendant committed multiple offenses against the victim over a short period of time. The Court of Appeals determined, in light of the undisputed facts, that as a matter of law, there was a single criminal episode and a single overarching criminal objective. Thus, the use of the shift-to-I rule was required.
State v. Taylor 293 Or App 426 (August 22, 2018) (Shorr, J.)
EVIDENCE - Expert and opinion testimony
Trial court erred in permitting expert testimony from a police officer that the victim had not committed an offense, rebutting the defendant’s self-defense claims. Remanded for new trial.
Defendant shot the victim with a .22 during an argument. A police officer observed a video recording of the incident and testified that he was an instructor for the DPPST specializing in the use of force, and did not see the victim commit a crime. That testimony was improper legal opinion evidence.
State v. Woodford 293 Or App 484 (August 22, 2018) (Shorr, J.)
EVIDENCE - Relevance
In prosecution for robbery and theft against a store, trial court erred by admitting evidence that merchandise and a receipt from another store were in the trunk of defendant’s car and a police detective’s speculation that the defendant might have engaged in “return fraud.” Reversed and remanded for new trial.
State v. Nguyen 293 Or App 492 (August 22, 2018) (Shorr, J.)
RIGHT TO COUNSEL - Self-representation
Trial court abused discretion in denying defendant’s mid-trial request to fire counsel and represent himself. Remanded for new trial.
State v. Nyquist 293 Or App 502 (August 22, 2018) (Bunch, pro tem)