https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Blog%3ACase_Reviews%2FOregon_Supreme_Court_02-04-10 2026-04-20T18:40:19Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.19.24 https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Supreme_Court_02-04-10&diff=7868&oldid=prev 2012-12-21T00:22:42Z

<p>Importing text file</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:''<br /> * Parole Board May Impose Sex Offender Conditions If Risk of Future Sex Offenses<br /> <br /> Two collaterally criminal cases from the Supremes this week: a parole case and a proposed ballot measure.<br /> <br /> The particulars of the initiative case have to do with wording of the title and summary. That doesn't matter so much as the substance of the certified initiative: it would modify the sentencing guidelines to make them &quot;advisory only&quot;. A departure up or down could be accomplished without a substantial or compelling reason.<br /> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057885.htm Berman v. Kroger]<br /> <br /> The parole board is allowed to impose sex offender conditions on an offender who is not on parole for a sex offense. Even if the offender has never been convicted of a sex offense. For example, Mr. Weems was not on parole for a sex crime and did not have any sex convictions. But he had an arrest for Sodomy where the charges were dismissed and a Sex Abuse case that was pled to Menacing. The board need only find that there is a risk of future sex offenses to impose the sex offender conditions. Here, there was adequate evidence of such a risk based on the arrest record. This was the same finding the Appellate Court made - so the law hasn't changed. But now the S.Ct. has issued the final word on the matter.<br /> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S056672.htm Weems v. Board of Parole]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{wl-publish: 2010-02-03 21:00:00 -0800 | abassos }}</div>

Maintenance script