2013 Criminal Law Quiz
by: Ryan • February 2, 2013 • no comments
This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to happen? If you know what might be just around the corner, preserving the issue now is like dropping a depth charge: maybe raising the issue at trial will barely make a splash, but within the year, it could mean a new trial or a new sentencing.
(1) The Oregon Supreme Court will announce the following holdings:
- (A) Restitution is a jury question, under Article I, section 17.
- (B) If the prosecutor's theory is that your client could either be a principal or an accomplice, the judge must give a concurrence (aka Boots/Houston) instruction, if requested.
- (C) When your client is charged with a B felony, and the state is alleging Dangerous Offender, the offense-specific elements of dangerous offender must be pleaded in the indictment.
- (D) Sex Abuse II was only ever intended to apply to a lack of actual consent, thereby eliminating the proportionality and sex offender registration problems created by State v. Stamper.
(2) Will the Oregon Court of Appeals make the following rules regarding the relevant Commercial Drug Offense factors?
- (A) The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on State v Hennings.
- (B) The state can no longer enhance the crime serious level for DCS of one controlled substance by proving substantial quantities of a different drug.
- (C) The COA will finally hold that "for consideration" must be actual, not hypothetical. That is, the defendant must have received consideration, not merely hoped to receive it.
(3) Starting with State v Christian, the appellate courts will decide a rash of cases finding a number of firearm laws to be unconstitutional.
- (A) True
- (B) False.
(4) The appellate courts will finally address the following merger issues:
- (A) What are the new rules involving merger of MCS/DCS/PCS in light of the dramatic changes in merger law in the past few years?
- (B) Can long-dead or imaginary people be victims of Identity Theft or ECSA, and if not, how does this effect merger?
- (C) If the location of firearms within a residence can be enough to defeat merger of felon in possession counts, must the necessary findings be made by the jury?
(5) The following proportionality issues will finally get their day in court:
- (A) If the presumptive sentence for Agg ID Theft is 24 months, but the state charged multiple counts of ID Theft instead, to get a maximum sentence of 45, 50 or 100 months in prison, is Article I, section 16, violated?
- (B) The issue having lost at the COA, the OSC will grant review to the question: does it violate the proportionality clause to sentence someone to more time on a misdemeanor revocation than they could have gotten on a felony revocation?
All of the topics raised in this quiz have been discussed in posts on the Library of Defense. Use the search engine above to find the topics that interest you the most. If you have any specific questions, please contact me.
And if you're feeling bold, use the comments section to record your answers. And the comments section would also be a good place if you have suggestions for additional questions.
