Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:22, August 18, 2013

2013-08-18T21:22:00Z

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:23:21Z

Importing text file

New page

'''Standard for Criminal Negligence'''

A criminally negligent state of mind does not require "seriously blameworthy" conduct or that a defendant's conduct shows an "indifference to consequences"; it requires only that the risk of a particular result from defendant's conduct be "substantial and unjustifiable" and that failure to be aware of said risk is a "gross deviation" from a reasonable standard of care. Whether conduct exhibits a criminally negligent state of mind is heavily fact-dependent. Here, defendant was guilty of criminally negligent homicide in a vehicle collision where facts showed he was more than "merely inattentive": he was driving in a known "safety corridor" under hazardous conditions, he was a professional driver who should have been aware of these conditions, several witnesses observed him driving unsafely prior to the collision, and the collision was avoidable.

The Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed ''State v Betts'' (384 P2d 198, 1963) in noting that evidence of prior conduct logically permits an inference of an ongoing state of mind.

''[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059739.pdf State v Lewis]'', ___Or___ (2012)

'''Motion for reconsideration allows minor change in previous ruling for purposes of habeas corpus'''

Upon petition for reconsideration, the Oregon Supreme Court modified its ruling in ''State v.Leistiko'', 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) to make clear that defendant ''raised'' two arguments on his petition for review, although they were not later briefed on the merits, for purposes of subsequent habeas relief. Otherwise the opinion is undisturbed. ''[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059191.pdf State v Leistiko]'' ___Or___ (2012)
{{wl-publish: 2012-11-08 12:53:17 -0800 | sclark }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, August 18, 2013
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Upon petition for reconsideration, the Oregon Supreme Court modified its ruling in ''State v.Leistiko'', 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) to make clear that defendant ''raised'' two arguments on his petition for review, although they were not later briefed on the merits, for purposes of subsequent habeas relief. Otherwise the opinion is undisturbed. ''[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059191.pdf State v Leistiko]'' ___Or___ (2012)		Upon petition for reconsideration, the Oregon Supreme Court modified its ruling in ''State v.Leistiko'', 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) to make clear that defendant ''raised'' two arguments on his petition for review, although they were not later briefed on the merits, for purposes of subsequent habeas relief. Otherwise the opinion is undisturbed. ''[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059191.pdf State v Leistiko]'' ___Or___ (2012)
	{{wl-publish: 2012-11-08 12:53:17 -0800 \| sclark }}		{{wl-publish: 2012-11-08 12:53:17 -0800 \| sclark }}
		+	{{wl-publish: 2012-11-08 12:53:17 -0800 \| abassos }}

Blog:Case Reviews/Oregon Supreme Court November 8, 2012 - Revision history

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:22, August 18, 2013

Maintenance script: Importing text file