A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson IV • March 27, 2019 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety

Defendant's furtive movements in a car in a high-crime area did not justify officer-safety search. Reversed and remanded.

Defendant and a companion were in a parked car in an alley. The car lacked a front license plate. A police officer parked in front of the car, and defendant and the passenger moved items around at their waists or in parts of the vehicle the officer could not see. The officer approached defendant and asked her to move her foot. She did so, revealing a syringe. Defendant's furtive movements did not support the officer's fear for his safety and did not provide an objectively reasonable basis to believe she possessed controlled substances. Accordingly, asking defendant to move her foot was an unlawful search.

State v. Sarmento 296 Or App 763 (March 27, 2019) (Ortega) (Jackson County, Barnack)

EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE - Evidence relevant to defense

Trial court erred in determining that evidence of defendant's brain injury and depression was not relevant. Remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals had previously remanded this case for new trial. On reconsideration, the court considered previously-unaddressed arguments and held that the defendant's personal characteristics, such as a brain injury and depression, are relevant to his claim of EED, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

State v. Craigen 296 Or App 772 (March 27, 2019) (Lagesen) (Umatilla County, West)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Incomplete record

Appellant failed to provide a sufficient record to establish error. Affirmed.

Appellant, who was civilly committed, argued that the trial court had failed to advise him of his rights. The record showed that the proceedings took place in a courtroom and in appellant's room in a hospital. The record suggested that some discussions occurred off the record. Because appellant did not seek to put those discussions on the record or otherwise recreate the record, the court did not know whether error had occurred.

State v. Y.B. 296 Or App 781 (March 27, 2019) (Lagesen) (Multnomah County, Herranz)