Oregon Appellate Court - Feb 26, 2014
by: Abassos • February 28, 2014 • no comments
Dependency – Order to Participate in a Psych Eval
The juvenile statutes authorize a court to order a parent to participate in a psychological evaluation if the evaluation "bears a rational relationship to the bases the court found for taking jurisdiction.” Thus, the juvenile court erred when it found it could only order an evaluation (1) where there is proof that someone suffers or may suffer from a psychological condition that an evaluation would assist to find services to address, and (2) where a parent has been offered services for a period of time and has not appeared to benefit from those services. Remanded for the court to determine whether there is a rational relationship between the bases of jurisdiction and the evaluation. State v. A.E.F 261 Or App __ (Feb 2014).
Dependency Jurisdiction – Sufficiency of Evidence
The evidence on the record supported the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s children where (1) mother had a history of medically abusing her children; (2) mother maintained regular contacts with sex-offender father; (3) mother’s newborn was found malnourished; and (4) expert testimony indicated mother’s mental health was fragile. State v. N.B 261 Or App __ (Feb 2014).
Speedy Trial - Delay caused by IAD Procedures Was Reasonable
A 17-month delay in bringing the defendant to trial was reasonable where the delay was a product of the procedures required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Here, the state filed a detainer with the Washington Department of Corrections. Because defendant did not file a speedy trial motion under the IAD, the state had to file an IAD request to have the defendant returned to Oregon. To have a defendant returned to Oregon under the IAD is quicker when the defendant files a speedy trial motion than when the state initiates the return process. Under these circumstances the delay was reasonable for purposes of ORS 135.747. State v. Hawkins, 261 Or App ___ (2014).
Possession with Intent to use a Firearm is Neither Use nor Threatened Use
Evidence that a defendant possessed a firearm and intended to use it is insufficient to prove that defendant “used or threatened to use a firearm” during the commission of a felony for purposes of ORS 161.610. Here, Defendant stayed in the car when his friend went inside a cafe to commit a robbery with a firearm. Later a second gun was found inside the car - presumably defendant's. The state conceded that they could not prove that Defendant personally used or threatened to use a firearm in the commission of the robbery. Denying Defendant’s MJOA was not a harmless error because it denied the defendant his right to an acquittal, even if his overall sentence for the criminal episode would have been the same. State v. Hawkins, 261 Or App ___ (2014).
