Oregon Supreme Court Grants Review in 5 Criminal Cases

This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: Grapkoch • March 6, 2011 • no comments

In case you missed it, last Friday the OSC agreed to take a look at several issues relating to criminal defendants. The issues involved are: (1) Cell phone searches incident to arrest; (2) The "emergency aid" exception to warrants; (3) The relevance of prior misconduct to intent where that issue is not in dispute; (4) Appellate jurisdiction for due process sentencing challenges following pleas; and (5) Accomplice liability and the "natural and probable consequences" instruction.

Searches and Seizures: Cell Phones and Search Incident to Arrest-State v. Nix

Opinion Below: State v. Nix, 236 Or. App. 32 (2010).

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the warrantless search of the entire data contents of a cell phone, without limit in scope or intrusiveness, is lawful for purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when the search is incident to an arrest.
2. Whether, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a cell phone is a personal item, akin to clothing, which normally can be searched incident to an arrest, or instead is a possessory item, akin to luggage, which normally is excluded from the permissible range of objects that can be searched without a warrant when the search is incident to an arrest.

Searches and Seizures: Emergency Aid Exception-State v. Baker

Opinion Below: State v. Baker, 237 Or. App. 342 (2010).

Questions Presented:

1. Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, what type of information must police possess to justify entry into a residence based on the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement?
2. To invoke the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, must police reasonably believe that a "life-threatening" emergency exists inside the residence?
3. Does the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement permit the police to enter the residence in a case such as this, where police heard yelling and screaming inside a defendant's house, knew that a person inside the house had conveyed a "code word" (meaning that she was in need of "immediate police assistance") to a third person, and knew that a young child may have been inside the residence?

Evidence/Relevance: Prior Misconduct and Intent-State v. Pitt

Opinion Below: State v. Pitt, 236 Or. App. 657 (2010).

Question Presented:

1. On review, the issue is whether evidence of a criminal defendant's prior misconduct is admissible as relevant to the issue of intent, when intent is not a disputed issue at trial.

Appellate Jurisdiction: Post-Plea Due Process Challenges to Sentence-State v. Cloutier

Opinion Below: <Appeal dismissed, no opinion below>

Question Presented:

1. On review, the issue is whether, if a defendant makes only a constitutional due process challenge to his sentence following a no-contest plea, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of an appeal from that sentence.

Accomplice Liability: "Natural and Probable Consequences" Instruction-State v. Lopez-Minjarez

Opinion Below: State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 236 Or. App. 270, on recons 237 Or. App. 688 (2010).

Question Presented:

1. Whether, by adopting ORS 161.155 as part of the 1971 Criminal Code, the legislature intended to eliminate accomplice liability for the natural and probable consequences of an intended crime, thereby making the "natural and probable consequences" uniform jury instruction an incorrect statement of the law.
2. Whether, even if the "natural and probable consequences" instruction is not a correct statement of Oregon law on accomplice liability, correct instructions about the elements of accomplice liability, and about each mental state of the charged crimes, rendered any error harmless.