Oregon Supreme Ct - Oct. 8, 2015
by: Abassos • October 8, 2015 • no comments
Free Exercise of Religion - The Constitution Allows For A Criminal Conviction On Less Than a Knowing Mental State, Even Where the Criminal Conduct Was Motivated By Religious Belief
The court rejects defendants' argument that the constitution requires a knowing mental state where the allegedly criminal conduct was based on religious belief. Here, defendants gave birth to a premature baby who, due to respiratory distress, died over the course of several hours. Due to their strong, religious belief in faith healing, defendants did not attempt to obtain medical help. Because a religious practice can be criminally sanctioned on less than a knowing mental state, defendants were appropriately convicted of second degree manslaughter for negligently causing death by failing to provide adequate medical care. In coming to this conclusion, the court disavows a prior case called Meltabeke v BOLI, which would have required a minimum mental state of knowledge. The court says that Meltebeke simply got the prior case law wrong when it attached constitutional significance to proof of knowledge. No rationale was offered then (or now) for why knowledge (as opposed to negligence) would have grounding in the free exercise of religion. Affirmed. State v Hickman, 358 Or 1 (2015).
A Trial Court Has The Power To Issue a Sell Order for Involuntary Medication, Even Where The State Hospital Believes That the Person Doesn't Have a Disorder and Does Not Need To Be Medicated
"Where, as here, a trial court has found that a defendant is not fit to proceed based on medical evidence, we conclude that the general authority conferred by ORS 161.370(1), by implication, also confers on trial courts the authority to issue Sell orders whether or not an OSH doctor has agreed that the medication ordered is medically necessary." The court rejects OSH's argument in this mandamus case, that "the legislature intended, effectively, to grant OSH a veto power in any case in which the hospital disagrees with the court’s fitness and treatment determination. The statutory framework makes clear that, in making a fitness determination, the court has the authority to hold hearings and consider all relevant medical evidence—including evidence that contradicts the medical determination made by OSH staff. OSH’s position that it has the authority to bring the criminal proceeding to a standstill if it disagrees with the court’s fitness and treatment determination creates a stalemate inconsistent with that statutory purpose." Oregon State Hospital v Butts, 358 Or 49 (2015).
