Blog:Main/2012 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T18:49:14Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:52, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:52:46Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:51, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:51:30Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:50, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:50:51Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:49, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:49:55Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:49, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:49:30Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:48, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:48:34Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:42, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:42:26Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:31, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:31:26Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 21:29, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T21:29:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, August 9, 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:

	Okay, that's it for now. I'm reserving the right to add additional questions once the website is at its new home. If you're feeling brave, put your answers in the comments below. Not just defense attorneys, but the prosecutors who lurk are also welcome to answer.		Okay, that's it for now. I'm reserving the right to add additional questions once the website is at its new home. If you're feeling brave, put your answers in the comments below. Not just defense attorneys, but the prosecutors who lurk are also welcome to answer.
−	{{wl-publish: 2011-12-18 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2011-12-18 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Felon in Possession]] merge.
-'''(5) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway|'State v. Mallory'']] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
+'''(5) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_Part_IV_(whose_job_is_it_anyway%3F)|''State v. Mallory'']] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
 :(A) True

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Felon in Possession]] merge.
-'''(5) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway | ''State v. Mallory'']] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
+'''(5) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway|'State v. Mallory'']] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
 :(A) True

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Felon in Possession]] merge.
-'''(5) [Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway ''State v. Mallory''] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
+'''(5) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway | ''State v. Mallory'']] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
 :(A) True

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, February 2, 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:


−	'''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court has under advisement [[Blog:Main/Big_Couple_of_Weeks_for_Eyewitness_IDs_and_the_Constitution ''State v. Lawson'']], potentially the most significant Eyewitness ID case in Oregon since ''State v. Classen''. The court will:'''	+	'''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court has under advisement [[Blog:Main/Big_Couple_of_Weeks_for_Eyewitness_IDs_and_the_Constitution \| ''State v. Lawson'']], potentially the most significant Eyewitness ID case in Oregon since ''State v. Classen''. The court will:'''

	:(A) Make mild improvements to the ''Classen'' analysis to reflect our greater understanding of eyewitness ID reliability.		:(A) Make mild improvements to the ''Classen'' analysis to reflect our greater understanding of eyewitness ID reliability.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-'''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court has under advisement [Blog:Main/Big_Couple_of_Weeks_for_Eyewitness_IDs_and_the_Constitution ''State v. Lawson''], potentially the most significant Eyewitness ID case in Oregon since ''State v. Classen''. The court will:'''
+'''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court has under advisement [[Blog:Main/Big_Couple_of_Weeks_for_Eyewitness_IDs_and_the_Constitution ''State v. Lawson'']], potentially the most significant Eyewitness ID case in Oregon since ''State v. Classen''. The court will:'''
 :(A) Make mild improvements to the ''Classen'' analysis to reflect our greater understanding of eyewitness ID reliability.
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :(A) Whether multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Can_Felony_Hit_and_Run_Now_Be_Compromised?|hit and run]]  merge.
-:(B) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger|ID Theft]  merge.
+:(B) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger|ID Theft]]  merge.
 :(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Felon in Possession]] merge.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :(B) MCS and PCS, but only when [[Blog:Main/The_Merger_Argument_Even_I'd_Forgotten_About |  MCS also has the enhancement fact of "possession of substantial quantities]]."
-:(C) MCS and DCS, since both address "[[Blog:Main/Revisting_and_Simplifying_the_Merger_of_DCS-MCS_and_PCS|DCS, MCS and PCS revisited]] ."
+:(C) MCS and DCS, since both address "[[Blog:Main/Revisting_and_Simplifying_the_Merger_of_DCS-MCS_and_PCS|one unified legislative objective]] ."
-:(D) [[Blog:Main/Revisting_and_Simplifying_the_Merger_of_DCS-MCS_and_PCS|DCS, MCS and PCS revisited]] , even if different children are depicted.
+:(D) [[Blog:Main/Revisting_and_Simplifying_the_Merger_of_DCS-MCS_and_PCS|ECSA and ECSA]] , even if different children are depicted.
 '''(4) The Oregon Supreme Court will grant review in order to address the following issues.'''
-:(A) Whether multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Can_Felony_Hit_and_Run_Now_Be_Compromised?|Is Felony Hit and Run Now Compromisible?]]  merge.
+:(A) Whether multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Can_Felony_Hit_and_Run_Now_Be_Compromised?|hit and run]]  merge.
-:(B) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger|Ryan's article]]  merge.
+:(B) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger|ID Theft]  merge.
-:(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Where the COA Went Wrong in it's Failure to Merge 3 Firearms]]  merge.
+:(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Felon in Possession]] merge.
 '''(5) [Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway ''State v. Mallory''] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :(A) The COA will apply the ''Moreno ''defense to ID Thefts.
-:(B) The OSC will finally address whether [[Blog:Main/Tea_Leaves,_Momentum_and_Offense-Specific_Enhancements-Elements |  offense-specific enhancement facts are elements]] under the Oregon Constitution.
+:(B) The OSC will finally address whether [[Blog:Main/Tea_Leaves,_Momentum_and_Offense-Specific_Enhancements-Elements | offense-specific enhancement facts are elements]] under the Oregon Constitution.
 :(C) Trial courts will start accepting special jury instructions that limit the application of [[Blog:Main/Defeating_Felony_Murder:_Finding_a_Lagniappe_in_Today%27s_Already_Great_OSC_Opinion|felony murder]] to co-defendants in certain situations, in light of the discussion in ''Lopez-Minjarez''.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 '''(3) The Court of Appeals will also find that the following pair of crimes merge. Pick all that apply.'''
-:(A) MCS and PCS (relying on [Blog:Main/UUW,_Gun_Minimum_and_Merger |  ''State v. Blake''])
+:(A) MCS and PCS (relying on [[Blog:Main/UUW,_Gun_Minimum_and_Merger |  ''State v. Blake'']])
 :(B) MCS and PCS, but only when [[Blog:Main/The_Merger_Argument_Even_I'd_Forgotten_About |  MCS also has the enhancement fact of "possession of substantial quantities]]."

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 As mentioned in the 2011 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz, the inspiration for this post is the annual quiz that the late William Safire composed for his newspaper column at the end of each year.
 '''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court has under advisement [Blog:Main/Big_Couple_of_Weeks_for_Eyewitness_IDs_and_the_Constitution ''State v. Lawson''], potentially the most significant Eyewitness ID case in Oregon since ''State v. Classen''. The court will:'''
@@ Line 33: / Line 34: @@
 :(C) When multiple counts of [[Blog:Main/Unring_that_Bell:_Where_the_COA_Went_Wrong_In_Its_Failure_to_Merge_3_Firearms|Where the COA Went Wrong in it's Failure to Merge 3 Firearms]]  merge.
-'''(5) [/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway ''State v. Mallory''] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
+'''(5) [Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Iv-whose-job-it-anyway ''State v. Mallory''] seemed to hold that a finding of separate criminal episodes was, sometimes, a ''Blakely'' fact, but it has never been reaffirmed. In 2012, the COA will finally reaffirm it.'''
 :(A) True
@@ Line 46: / Line 47: @@
 :(C) Trial courts will start accepting special jury instructions that limit the application of [[Blog:Main/Defeating_Felony_Murder:_Finding_a_Lagniappe_in_Today%27s_Already_Great_OSC_Opinion|felony murder]] to co-defendants in certain situations, in light of the discussion in ''Lopez-Minjarez''.
 Okay, that's it for now. I'm reserving the right to add additional questions once the website is at its new home. If you're feeling brave, put your answers in the comments below. Not just defense attorneys, but the prosecutors who lurk are also welcome to answer.
 {{wl-publish: 2011-12-18 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}