A Book from the Library of Defense

Oregon Appellate Court--January 16, 2019

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search
This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: • March 6, 2019 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

CRIMINAL MISTREATMENT - Duty to provide care

Duty to provide care is not limited to physical care; duty imposed under the statutory requirements for a power of attorney brought defendant’s obligations to victim within ambit of criminal mistreatment statute. Affirmed.

The victim spent ten months in a hospital and a nursing facility. He signed a power of attorney authorizing defendant, his daughter, to manage his financial affairs. She took money from his bank accounts, opened fraudulent credit-card accounts, and bought a car.

The Court of Appeals decided that, although the statute was initially limited to those with a duty to provide physical care, amendments expanded the statute's scope.

State v. Roberts 295 Or App 670 (January 16, 2019) (DeVore) (Clatsop County, Nelson)

STALKING ORDERS - Findings relating to firearm possession

Trial court did not err by issuing federal firearms certification in connection with a stalking order. Affirmed.

The order contained a finding that respondent was subject to federal prosecution for possession of firearms because respondent had 'cohabited' with petitioner. On appeal, respondent disputed that he had cohabited with respondent, the basis for the federal firearm prohibition was appropriate. The Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue, because petitioner failed to cite federal law in his briefing.

S.P.Z v. Kirkwood 295 Or App 686 (January 16, 2019) (Lagesen) (Washington County, Fun)

MIRANDA - Interrogation following warnings

Defendant re-initiated conversation following Miranda warnings. Affirmed.

When told that his interrogation was being recorded, defendant declined to answer questions and asked for counsel. Detectives said defendant was under arrest for murder and terminated the interview. Defendant asked about his case and whether his girlfriend would be charged. When detectives said that they couldn't talk to defendant after he asked for a lawyer, defendant "unask[ed]" for a lawyer. Defendant clarified that he wanted to talk without a lawyer and made admissions.

State v. Gillespie 295 Or App 702 (January 16, 2019) (James) (Clackamas County, Jones)