Oregon Appellate Court - Jan 22, 2014

by: Abassos • January 22, 2014 • no comments

DUII – Implied Consent Warnings Are Not Coercive

Consent to a urine test is not involuntary merely because it occurs after receiving implied consent warnings. The implied consent warnings are not inherently coercive. See Moore II. State v. Wieboldt

Emergency Aid – Implied Consent to Enter a Home to Render Aid Doesn't Include Implied Consent to Find the Owner

Implied consent to enter the front room of a house to ensure the safety of a person does not extend to the entry of closed bedrooms in order to find the owner of the house. Here, the police entered the home to check on a man unconscious on a couch at an estate sale. They then proceeded to the back of the house where they opened the door of a bedroom, where they found woman asleep on the bed and drug paraphernalia nearby. That bedroom entry could not be justified either by implied consent to enter for emergency aid or by the more vague justification of "finding the owner". State v. Danielson

Robbery II - Escape Hatch Allowed if Victim's Subjective Fear was Unreasonable

In order to trigger the escape hatch from the mandatory minimum sentence for Robbery II, the judge must either find that either (1) the victim was not put in fear of imminent significant physical injury or (2) such fear was not reasonable. Here, the defendant waved a pocket knife at the teller during a bank robbery. At sentencing she argued that although the teller was afraid, the fear wasn't reasonable because there was a large physical barrier between defendant and the victim. Since the court failed to determine whether the fear was objectively reasonable, it committed legal error. However, the error was harmless because the sentencing court found that there was no substantial and compelling reason to justify a downward departure sentence. The court also has a long discussion on why the sentencing issue in this case was both appealable and reviewable even though defendant plead guilty. State v Brewer

Restitution Awards – Post-judgment Interest Unlawful In Restitution Awards

Post-judgment interest cannot lawfully be imposed as restitution. Here, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $26,004 plus 12 percent interest. Although the error was unpreserved, the court held that this was an appropriate case to correct an unpreserved error. State v. Cain

Per Curiams

• Multiple convictions for sexual abuse based on a single act of sexual contact merge into one conviction. State v. Disney
• The court cannot summarily deny defendant’s request to proceed pro se without making a record of whether the defendant’s decision is an intelligent and understanding one, and whether granting the defendant’s request would disrupt the judicial process. State v. Chambery