A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Court of Appeals 08-25-10

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos • August 24, 2010 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

  • Post Prison Supervision - PPS doesn't start during Incarceration
  • Search Warrant Affidavit - Corroboration of Informant
  • False Information to a Police Officer - Mental State
  • Requested Jury Instructions - Modify them to fit your Case


Contents

Post Prison Supervision - PPS doesn't start during incarceration

An offender cannot begin post prison supervision while still lawfully incarcerated on another charge. Envision a defendant with two concurrent felony prison sentences, one for two years and one for five years. It seems like the PPS on the 2 year sentence should start at the end of the 2 years. But it doesn't. The PPS on both cases start when the defendant is released from prison - i.e., at the end of the five year sentence. This is true even where the total amount of prison time plus PPS (on both cases together) would seem to exceed the statutory maximum. For example, if the two cases above were C felonies (with the five year sentence being a gun minimum, e.g.), the 5 year prison sentence wouldn't have any PPS because prison plus PPS can't exceed the statutory maximum. But the defendant would still serve PPS on the 2 year sentence after release on the 5 year sentence because the time between the end of the 2 year sentence and the start of PPS doesn't count. State v. Norris

Search Warrant Affidavit - Corroboration of Informant

The following facts are sufficient for an issuing magistrate reviewing a search warrant affidavit to conclude that an anonymous informant's statements regarding a marijuana grow operation were corroborated: (1) the officer's training and experience, (2) a huge amount of electrical and water usage compared to similar houses and compared to the previous owners as evidenced by utility records and neighbor's testimony regarding a shared well, (3) structural modifications to the house and a trapdoor noted by the informant, (4) defendant's prior drug conviction. State v. Duarte

False Information to a Police Officer - Mental State

For the charge of False Information to a Police Officer, the state needs to prove that the defendant knew the officer was requesting identification for the purpose of issuing a citation. This was a state's concession based on State v. Jaha, 118 Or App 497 (1993). State v. Ormsby

Requested Jury Instructions - Modify them to fit your case

On an Assault I case, defendant requested a jury instruction on the crime of Intimidation to show that he was justified in using deadly force to protect himself and others. The judge's denial of that instruction was not reversible error because the instruction was technically inaccurate, even though defendant was entitled to a proper instruction on Intimidation. Defendant submitted the uniform instruction on Intimidation which says that the State must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But here, the State's burden was to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had a reasonable belief that he was being subjected to 1st degree Intimidation. Thus, it was not a technically correct instruction. State v. Nebel