Oregon Supreme Court 07-29-10
by: Kbevins • July 28, 2010 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- 30% Good Time Hearings - Appeal
- State Criminalist Reports Require Author Testimony
=
30% Good Time Hearings - Appeal===
In what appears to be the final word on the appealability of those 3508 hearings to determine 30% vs 20% good time, the S.Ct. decides that it's moot. Since the 2010 legislature dumped the maximum back down to 20% the defendant has received what is currently allowed.
Of course it's actually more complicated than that:
2-17-10: If your client's crime was before this date, then 30% good time is still the law. Including for those sentenced in the controversial and politicized rehearings. If your client's crime is after this date, then 20% good time is what he'll get. 7-1-11: If your client holds off on committing a crime until 7-1-11 then he's back to 30% again. But there are fewer eligible crimes this time around. 7-1-13: Due to the original sunset date, crimes after 7-1-13 are back to 20%. But there will be studies and arguments and politics. And maybe, just maybe, 30% might become a limited but permanent thing.
State Criminalist Reports Require Author Testimony
A laboratory report positively identifying a controlled substance requires supporting testimony from the author of that report, to provide the defendant with her constitutional right to confront witnesses. See Birchfield. In this case of unlawful possession, the trial court erroneously overruled defendant's objection to a report identifying a substance found on her person as methamphetamine, where the criminalist who authored the report did not appear in court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling on the grounds that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the erroneous admission very likely affected the jury's verdict, as the only other evidence that the substance was methamphetamine was that the defendant had admitted to having "contraband," and the officer at the scene suspected it to be meth. State v. Willis
