OCDLA Library of Defense - Latest Case Reviews

Blog Article I, Section 16, Opportunities by: Ryan Scott • June 17, 2025 • no comments Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.” The proportionality provision requires a “comparative relationship” between punishments and the offenses for which they are imposed: “The term ‘proportion’ indicates a comparative relationship between at least two things. See, e.g., 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 45 (1828) (“proportion” indicates a “comparative relation”). Here, the two things being related are “penalties” and “the offense,” and the provision requires that the penalties for each particular offense be “proportioned”—that is, comparatively related—to that offense. The strong implication of that requirement is that a greater or more severe penalty should be imposed for a greater or more severe offense and, conversely, that a less severe penalty should be imposed for a less severe offense.” State v. Wheeler, 343 Or 652, 655-56, 175 P3d 438 (2007) The test for making proportionality determinations has “at least three factors” to consider, including: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 58 n 6, 217 P3d 659 (2009). Buck/Rodriguez involved Measure 11 crimes, requiring a 75 month mandatory minimum sentence. But the actual behavior was rather minor, and therefore the 75 month sentence was overly severe. In addition, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that characteristics of the defendant plays a significant role in determining if a sentencing is disproportionate. In State v. Ryan, the Court held: "Evidence of an offender's intellectual disability therefore is relevant to a proportionality determination where sentencing laws require the imposition of a term of imprisonment without consideration of such evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that, where the issue is presented, a sentencing court must consider an offender's intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender in a proportionality analysis under Rodriguez/Buck." Id. at 620-21. In State v. Gonzalez, the Oregon Supreme Court held that other characteristics other than intellectual disability may be relevant, but rejected the argument that the defendant's mental health attributes rendered a M11 sentence unconstitutional. I think, however, the case law has only scratched the surface of situations where Article I, section 16, would come into play. What follows are some ideas for when the constitutional protections of the proportionality clause might be triggered. → continue reading... Is A Defendant Entitled to a Jury Trial On Restitution? by: Ryan Scott • June 13, 2025 • no comments Today, the OSC issued a press release that announced one case it was granting review on, and a number of cases it was not. Among those cases where the court was not granting review, individual justices either said they would have granted review or, more likely, concurred in the denial of review but felt the issue was worth addressing in a future case. In other words, the individual justices were alerting lawyers -- defense lawyers in particular -- of issues they would like to see raised in future cases. One of those cases was State v. Anne. Justices DeHoog and James both concurred in the denial of review "but observed that the petition raised an important legal issue that the Court should consider in an appropriate case." Do they say what that issue is? Nope, I had to look up the case to find out what the issue was. And let me tell you, it's a doozy. → continue reading... How to Keep Out The Forensic Interview by: Ryan Scott • May 21, 2025 • no comments For the past couple of years, I have encouraged a variety of arguments for keeping out the forensic interview in child sex cases. Not a lot of appellate success so far. Right now, though, I want to focus on excluding it under OEC 403. I've made the argument a couple of times myself, I've written an appellate brief on the issue, I've read other appellate briefs on the issue, and I've read trial transcripts where the arguments were raised. Here is a step-by-step process for what I think is the best way to maximize your chances of either keeping out the interview or winning on appeal. → continue reading... Next 20 Articles Case Reviews Oregon Supreme Court, June 5th, 2025 by: Rankin Johnson PLEA AGREEMENTS - Enforcement → read the full summaries... Oregon Court of Appeals, June 4th, 2025 by: Rankin Johnson EVIDENCE - Prior convictions → read the full summaries... Oregon Court of Appeals, May 29th, 2025 by: Rankin Johnson EVIDENCE - Other bad acts MERGER - Lesser-included offenses EVIDENCE - Toolmarks in firearms BIAS CRIMES - Sufficiency SENTENCING - Disproportionality ATTEMPTS - Relation to completed offense MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - Menacing → read the full summaries... Oregon Court of Appeals, May 21st, 2025 by: Rankin Johnson MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - Finality SENTENCING - Compensatory fine CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor MENS REA - Sufficiency MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - Value → read the full summaries... Oregon Court of Appeals, May 14th, 2025 by: Rankin Johnson SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - Recanting victim → read the full summaries... _________________________

RECENT LOD UPDATES Right_to_Counsel Severing_Joined_Charges Appointing_Counsel/Informing_of_Rights Consolidation_by_the_Court Severing_Joined_Defendants Due_Process_Clause Joinder/Severance Joinder_of_Certain_Environmental_Quality_Offenses Rights_Before_Submitting_to_Chemical_Testing Post-Conviction_Proceedings Remedial_Sanction_Hearings Parental_Rights_Proceedings Access_to_Adequate_Services_of_Counsel Eligibility_for_Court-Appointed_Counsel Interrogations_and_Statements Sixth_Amendment Qualifying_Stages_of_Criminal_Prosecution Trial_Procedure Interpreters Jury_Concurrence Substituting/Obtaining_Retained_Counsel Joinder_of_Charges Partial_Denial_of_Counsel Substitution_of_Court-Appointed_Counsel Jury_Instructions ________________________________________________ Search and Seizure Privacy Interest, Stops,Arrests, Consent, Warrant Exceptions, Suppression Exceptions, Search Warrants Forensic Science Ballistics, Bitemarks, Bloodstains, DNA, Eyewitness ID, Fingerprints, Handwriting ID, Polygraphs, Shaken Baby Evidence Code Procedure, Relevance, Privileges, Lay Witnesses, Experts, Hearsay, Physical Evidence Immigration Padilla, Agg Felonies, Inadmissibility, Removability, Moral Turpitude, Naturalization, Juveniles, U-Visas Crimes Measure 11, Drugs, Sex Crimes, Homicide, Property, DUII, Child Abuse, Other Crimes Self Incrimination Evidentiary Burdens, State Compulsion, Custody/Compelling Circumstances, Right to Silence, Impeachment Mental States Civil Commitments, Aid & Assist, GEI, Disordered Mental State, Mens Rea, Testing, DSM-IV Defenses Alibi, Necessity, Speedy Trial, Self Defense Oregon Constitution Speedy Trial, Right to Counsel, Confrontation, Double Jeopardy, Equal Privileges, Ex Post Facto, Venue |Trial Procedure Charging Decision, Discovery, Right to Counsel, Pretrial Motions Extradition Veterans and Military Service Created by Jess Barton. Sentencing Criminal Episodes,Merger, Consecutive Sentences, Mandatory Minimums, Probation, Restitution, Collateral Consequences