Main/2011 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz

Perhaps this will turn into an end of the year tradition, in the manner of William Safire. Please feel free to record your answers in the comment section, if you're willing to go on record. If appropriate to the question, multiple answers are allowed'''.'''

'''1. The [http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[Blog:Main/The_Unanimous_Jury_Issue | unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':

(a) Deny cert, like they've done 3 times in the past two years.

(b) Grant cert and rule for the state of Oregon.

(c) Grant cert and rule for Mr. Herrera.

'''2. The Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) has [http://www.ojd.state.or.us/records/sccalendar.nsf/b29dd44d01dffea088256c91005b3a5b/3afdabd6f7399fba8825775300669f78?OpenDocument ''State v. Speedis''] under advisement. This is a case that - if the defense wins - would result in the state being unable to go forward on non-enumerated enhancement factors, such as "on supervision at the time of the offense." [[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/non-enumerated-factors-memo-1.doc See here for a trial level ''Speedis'' motion]] modified from Meredith Allen's appellate brief. OSC will:'''

(a) Rule for the state and the status quo will remain unchanged.

(b) Rule for the defense on very narrow grounds, giving us a win but a small one.

(c) Rule for the defense in such a way that calls into question all of the recent COA opinions on aggravating factors.

'''3. The Oregon Supreme Court will grant review in [[Blog:Main/Sentence_Enhancers_vs_Elements:_a_Comment_on_State_v._Sanchez | ''State v. Sanchez'']] (which asks: what are the pleading requirements for enhancement factors?).'''

(a) True

(b) False

'''4. The Oregon Court of Appeals has previously ruled that sex abuse II applies to otherwise consensual sex with minors in a case called [[Blog:Main/When_Things_Come_Together:_Simultaneity,_Merger_and_Intercourse:_UPDATED | ''State v. Stamper'']]. The result has been a number of unintended consequences. In 2011, the court will:'''

(a) Affirm ''Stamper''.

(b) Reverse ''Stamper''.

(c) Ignore ''Stamper''.

'''5. In the last half of 2011, Oregon defense lawyers will read the tea leaves and be talking about the strong possibility of''':

(a) [[Blog:Main/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results | overturning ''CA v. Hurtado'']], yet another incorporation case, in light of wins in Herrera and McDonald.

(b) challenging felon in possession charges on as-applied basis under both the state and federal constitutions, using the analysis known as "[http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/03/why-cant-martha-stewart-have-a-gun.html Why can't Martha Stewart own a gun for self-defense?]"

(c) cops needing to get search warrants for urine or blood in all DRE DUIIs.

'''6. The Oregon Court of Appeals will hold that the following crimes merge''':

(a) [[Blog:Main/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 | UUV and PSV.]]

(b) [[Blog:Main/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED|MCS and PCS]] .

(c) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_Part_II_(Encouraging_Child_Sex_Abuse) | Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse]], even if the pictures are of different children

(d) [[Blog:Main/Two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_%28and_one_that's_a_little_tougher%29 |  Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
{{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}