A few very quick observations about today's COA opinions
by: Ryan • December 13, 2011 • no comments
In light of the enormous number of opinions, you can expect that it will be awhile before the summaries are on-line. But there are a few opinions I wanted to highlight quickly.
If you represent someone charged with a DRE (controlled substance) DUII, then you'll have every reason to be excited by State v. Moore. Congratulations to Marc Brown on a huge win! And a tip of the hat to Jonah Morningstar, who had previously argued here that Machuca I (reversed on other grounds) applied in full force to controlled substance DUIIs.
A long, but incredibly valuable PCR opinion can be found here. Must reading for lawyers and investigators, especially if you have a defendant accused of arson, among other crimes. A huge congratulations to Dennis Balske!
Not every argument of first impression put forth at the Library of Defense wins at the Court of Appeals. If you had read and liked my post regarding traffic stops and the request for insurance and vehicle registration, you might be disappointed by this footnote in State v. Hampton:
For the first time in his reply brief, defendant argues that the officer's question did not occur during an unavoidable lull because the officer already knew that defendant's registration was expired and, therefore, had no reason to ask for defendant's registration. We reject that argument because asking a defendant for his license, registration, and insurance is routine behavior for an officer conducting a traffic stop. See, e.g., State v. Courtney, 242 Or App 321, 324, 255 P3d 577 (2011) (the officer requested the defendant's license, registration, and insurance information during a traffic stop).
I handled the appeal on Hampton, so I will avoid snark or commentary until after the Oregon Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in, except to say . . . no, I won't, I won't. Discretion, valor, and all that.
Another argument previewed at Library of Defense was shot down. It involved the relationship between a reckless mental state and voluntary intoxication. The original post is here. The appellate decision is here.
Man, still a lot of opinions left, including a number of good ones I haven't mentioned yet.
