Blog:Main/2013 Criminal Law Quiz - Revision history

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

2013-08-09T18:49:19Z

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

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 16:38, February 4, 2013

2013-02-04T16:38:12Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 18:37, February 3, 2013

2013-02-03T18:37:31Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "
This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to..."

2013-02-03T01:13:06Z

Created page with "<summary>This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to..."

New page

<summary>This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to happen? If you know what might be just around the corner, preserving the issue now is like dropping a depth charge: maybe raising the issue at trial will barely make a splash, but within the year, it could mean a new trial or a new sentencing.</summary>

'''(1) The Oregon Supreme Court will announce the following holdings:'''

(A) Restitution is a jury question, under Article I, section 17.

(B) If the prosecutor's theory is that your client could either be a principal or an accomplice, the judge must give a concurrence (aka Boots/Houston) instruction, if requested.

(C) When your client is charged with a B felony, and the state is alleging Dangerous Offender, the offense-specific elements of dangerous offender must be pleaded in the indictment.

(D) Sex Abuse II was only ever intended to apply to a lack of actual consent, thereby eliminating the proportionality and sex offender registration problems created by ''State v. Stamper''.

'''(2) Will the Oregon Court of Appeals make the following rules regarding the relevant Commercial Drug Offense factors?'''

(A) The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on St v Hennings.

(B) The state can no longer enhance the crime serious level for DCS of one controlled substance by proving substantial quantities of a different drug.

(C) The COA will finally hold that "for consideration" must be actual, not hypothetical. That is, the defendant must have received consideration, not merely hoped to receive it.

'''(3) Starting with ''State v Christian'', the appellate courts will decide a rash of cases finding a number of firearm laws to be unconstitutional.'''

(A) True

(B) False.

'''(4) The appellate courts will finally address the following merger issues:'''

(A) What are the new rules involving merger of MCS/DCS/PCS in light of the dramatic changes in merger law in the past few years?

(B) Can long-dead or imaginary people be victims of Identity Theft or ECSA, and if not, how does this effect merger?

(C) If the location of firearms within a residence can be enough to defeat merger of felon in possession counts, must the necessary findings be made by the jury?

'''(5) The following proportionality issues will finally get their day in court:'''

(A) If the presumptive sentence for Agg ID Theft is 24 months, but the state charged multiple counts of ID Theft instead, to get a maximum sentence of 45, 50 or 100 months in prison, is Article I, section 16, violated?

(B) The issue having lost at the COA, the OSC will grant review to the question: does it violate the proportionality clause to sentence someone to more time on a misdemeanor revocation than they could have gotten on a felony revocation?

All of the topics raised in this quiz have been discussed in posts on the Library of Defense. Use the search engine above to find the topics that interest you the most. If you have any specific questions, please contact me.

And if you're feeling bold, use the comments section to record your answers. And the comments section would also be a good place if you have suggestions for additional questions.
{{wl-publish: 2013-02-02 17:13:06 -0800 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, August 9, 2013
Line 42:		Line 42:

	And if you're feeling bold, use the comments section to record your answers. And the comments section would also be a good place if you have suggestions for additional questions.		And if you're feeling bold, use the comments section to record your answers. And the comments section would also be a good place if you have suggestions for additional questions.
−	{{wl-publish: 2013-02-02 17:13:06 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2013-02-02 17:13:06 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 '''(2)  Will the Oregon Court of Appeals make the following rules regarding the relevant Commercial Drug Offense factors?'''
-:(A)  The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on St v Hennings.
+:(A)  The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on ''State v Hennings''.
 :(B)  The state can no longer enhance the crime serious level for DCS of one controlled substance by proving substantial quantities of a different drug.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''(1)  The Oregon Supreme Court will announce the following holdings:'''
-(A)  Restitution is a jury question, under Article I, section 17.
+:(A)  Restitution is a jury question, under Article I, section 17.
-(B)  If the prosecutor's theory is that your client could either be a principal or an accomplice, the judge must give a concurrence (aka Boots/Houston) instruction, if requested.
+:(B)  If the prosecutor's theory is that your client could either be a principal or an accomplice, the judge must give a concurrence (aka Boots/Houston) instruction, if requested.
-(C)  When your client is charged with a B felony, and the state is alleging Dangerous Offender, the offense-specific elements of dangerous offender must be pleaded in the indictment.
+:(C)  When your client is charged with a B felony, and the state is alleging Dangerous Offender, the offense-specific elements of dangerous offender must be pleaded in the indictment.
-(D)  Sex Abuse II was only ever intended to apply to a lack of actual consent, thereby eliminating the proportionality and sex offender registration problems created by ''State v. Stamper''.
+:(D)  Sex Abuse II was only ever intended to apply to a lack of actual consent, thereby eliminating the proportionality and sex offender registration problems created by ''State v. Stamper''.
 '''(2)  Will the Oregon Court of Appeals make the following rules regarding the relevant Commercial Drug Offense factors?'''
-(A)  The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on St v Hennings.
+:(A)  The state must prove that the $300 or more in cash was actually connected to the drug offense, relying on St v Hennings.
-(B)  The state can no longer enhance the crime serious level for DCS of one controlled substance by proving substantial quantities of a different drug.
+:(B)  The state can no longer enhance the crime serious level for DCS of one controlled substance by proving substantial quantities of a different drug.
-(C)  The COA will finally hold that "for consideration" must be actual, not hypothetical.  That is, the defendant must have received consideration, not merely hoped to receive it.
+:(C)  The COA will finally hold that "for consideration" must be actual, not hypothetical.  That is, the defendant must have received consideration, not merely hoped to receive it.
 '''(3)  Starting with ''State v Christian'', the appellate courts will decide a rash of cases finding a number of firearm laws to be unconstitutional.'''
-(A)  True
+:(A)  True
-(B)  False.
+:(B)  False.
 '''(4)  The appellate courts will finally address the following merger issues:'''
-(A)  What are the new rules involving merger of MCS/DCS/PCS in light of the dramatic changes in merger law in the past few years?
+:(A)  What are the new rules involving merger of MCS/DCS/PCS in light of the dramatic changes in merger law in the past few years?
-(B)  Can long-dead or imaginary people be victims of Identity Theft or ECSA, and if not, how does this effect merger?
+:(B)  Can long-dead or imaginary people be victims of Identity Theft or ECSA, and if not, how does this effect merger?
-(C)  If the location of firearms within a residence can be enough to defeat merger of felon in possession counts, must the necessary findings be made by the jury?
+:(C)  If the location of firearms within a residence can be enough to defeat merger of felon in possession counts, must the necessary findings be made by the jury?
 '''(5)  The following proportionality issues will finally get their day in court:'''
-(A)  If the presumptive sentence for Agg ID Theft is 24 months, but the state charged multiple counts of ID Theft instead, to get a maximum sentence of 45, 50 or 100 months in prison, is Article I, section 16, violated?
+:(A)  If the presumptive sentence for Agg ID Theft is 24 months, but the state charged multiple counts of ID Theft instead, to get a maximum sentence of 45, 50 or 100 months in prison, is Article I, section 16, violated?
-(B)  The issue having lost at the COA, the OSC will grant review to the question:  does it violate the proportionality clause to sentence someone to more time on a misdemeanor revocation than they could have gotten on a felony revocation?
+:(B)  The issue having lost at the COA, the OSC will grant review to the question:  does it violate the proportionality clause to sentence someone to more time on a misdemeanor revocation than they could have gotten on a felony revocation?
 All of the topics raised in this quiz have been discussed in posts on the Library of Defense.  Use the search engine above to find the topics that interest you the most.  If you have any specific questions, please contact me.

Blog:Main/2013 Criminal Law Quiz - Revision history

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

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 16:38, February 4, 2013

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 18:37, February 3, 2013

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to..."

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "
This quiz is my way of anticipating possible changes in case law over the next year. Why bother anticipating what changes might occur? Why not just wait for them to..."