https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Blog%3AMain%2F2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic 2026-09-20T23:44:07Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.19.24 https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26352&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T01:12:40Z

<p></p> <table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 01:12, January 22, 2018</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 3:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 3:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>newest review integrated: Dec 28 (end of year)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>newest review integrated: Dec 28 (end of year)</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>oldest review integrated: <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Nov 1</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>oldest review integrated: <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Oct 25</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Appeals ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Appeals ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 96:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 96:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Criminal Procedure ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Criminal Procedure ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Criminal Procedure—Concurrence Instruction'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"> </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial court erred in failing to give a concurrence instruction where the state presented evidence and argued two factual theories of interfering with a police officer for refusing to obey a lawful order to the jury.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">After a traffic stop of defendant escalated into a confrontation with the police, the state charged defendant with interfering with a peace officer for refusing to obey a lawful order.&#160; The charging instrument did not specify which order defendant had disobeyed.&#160; The evidence at trial supported two factual theories, that defendant had disobeyed orders to get back into his car and that defendant had disobeyed orders to put his arms behind his back.&#160; In opening statements and closing arguments, the prosecutor initially focused on defendant’s refusal to get back into his car.&#160; Defendant also responded to that theory in closing. During rebuttal and over defendant’s objection, the prosecutor argued that the jury could also convict defendant for refusing the officers’ orders to put his arms behind his back.&#160; On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by overruling the objection and not giving a concurrence instruction.&#160; The state concedes the error.&#160; The court holds that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give a concurrence instruction.&#160; It does not decide whether the trial court also erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the state’s introduction of a new factual theory in rebuttal argument.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161780.pdf State v. Sippel], 288 Or App 391 (2017) (Lagesen, P.J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160; &#160;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160; &#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Criminal Procedure—Right to Self-Representation—Mid-trial waiver of counsel'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Criminal Procedure—Right to Self-Representation—Mid-trial waiver of counsel'''</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 176:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 184:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Delinquency ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Delinquency ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Juvenile Delinquency—Third-degree Assault—Sufficiency of Evidence'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Evidence that youth returned to fight and held the victim while another person punched and kicked the victim supported finding youth was within juvenile court’s jurisdiction for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute third-degree assault.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Youth confronted the victim at school by yelling at her.&#160; The victim pushed youth away, and youth grabbed the victim’s hair and began punching her.&#160; Additional parties joined the fight, including youth’s friend A, who pulled the victim the floor and punched and kicked her.&#160; Youth briefly left and returned to the fight and held the victim while A punched and kicked her.&#160; A teacher broke up the fight a short time later.&#160; The victim received treatment for a concussion, neck, and back injuries.&#160; Youth was found to be in the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts that if committed by an adult would constitute second-degree disorderly conduct and third-degree assault.&#160; At the hearing, youth argued that there was insufficient evidence that she caused the victim’s injuries to support the third-degree assault allegation.&#160; The court concludes, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that youth caused physical injury as a principle because youth’s actions were so extensively intertwined with the infliction of physical injury to the victim that her conduct could be found to have produced that injury.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158436.pdf State v. M.M.A.], 288 Or App 407 (2017) (Garrett, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Sentencing—Conditions of Probation'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Sentencing—Conditions of Probation'''</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 254:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 270:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Evidence ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Evidence ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Evidence—Witness-False-in-Part Instruction'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Witness-false-in-part instruction properly given where physical evidence directly contradicts defendant’s trial testimony.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Officers were dispatched to investigate a report that a damaged pickup pulled into a gas station and that two occupants fled on foot.&#160; The truck had extensive front-end damage and a missing tire.&#160; The officers found defendant and another man walking about a block from the gas station.&#160; Defendant appeared visibly intoxicated.&#160; Defendant twice told the officers that he had been driving, but later denied driving after being confronted about the damage to the truck.&#160; An officer received defendant’s consent to check under defendant’s shirt for injuries and saw an upside down U-shaped abrasion on defendant’s chest, which suggested to the officer that defendant was not wearing a seat belt when he hit the steering wheel.&#160; At trial, defendant testified that he had not been driving and explained why he had initially lied to the officers.&#160; At the state’s request, and over defendant’s objection, the trial court gave the “witness-false-in-part instruction.”&#160; On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving the instruction because his trial testimony was not inconsistent with his prior statements.&#160; The court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the witness-false-in-part instruction because the jury could find that defendant consciously testified falsely when he denied driving based on the physical evidence that he had been driving.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160341.pdf State v. Roman], 288 Or App 441 (2017) (James, J.) </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Evidence—Remand for OEC 403 balancing''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant not limited on remand to arguments made first time in trial court in support of exclusion under OEC 403.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159471.pdf State v. Davis], 288 Or App 451 (2017) (Per Curiam)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Evidence—Relevance—Evidence of Acquittal'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Evidence that defendant was acquitted of nondrug charges that had led to his arrest and search, during which methamphetamine was found, relevant at trial for unlawful possession of methamphetamine to dispel potential prejudice of being branded as a criminal.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161589.pdf State v. Langenberg], 288 Or App 454 (2017) (Per Curiam)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—Remand for OEC 403 balancing'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—Remand for OEC 403 balancing'''</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 432:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 468:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Search and Seizure ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Search and Seizure ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Searches—Abandonment of Privacy Right''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant abandoned his privacy interest in a camera disguised as a charging device by purposefully leaving it in a public bathroom, in plain view, where any person visiting the bathroom could inspect it, for several days.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">A Starbucks employee found a small, charger-like device that he believed to be a camera plugged-in across from the toilet in the restroom and called the police.&#160; An officer responded and took and lodged the device at the department as “found property.” A week later, a captain reviewing the department’s calls from the week prior, retrieved the device and determined that it was, in fact, a camera.&#160; A detective followed up with the Starbucks employees and learned that a man had come in and attempted to retrieve a charger.&#160; When the employees told him that it had been turned over to the police, the man appeared surprised and exited the store.&#160; Using surveillance footage from Starbucks and footage from the device, the detective obtained a search warrant for defendant’s two residences.&#160; Relying on the state and federal constitutions, defendant moved to suppress the warrantless search of the device and subsequent searches of his homes.&#160; The trial court denied suppression, ruling that defendant abandoned his privacy right to the camera when he left it in the Starbucks restroom.&#160; The court holds that defendant abandoned his privacy interest in the camera under the state and federal constitutions because he purposefully left the property in a restroom available to the general public, in plain view, where any person visiting the bathroom could have inspected it, and left it there for several days.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A157082.pdf State v. Ipsen], 288 Or App 395 (2017) (A157082) (Tookey, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Motion to Suppress—Issue Preclusion—Relitigating suppression in another jurisdiction'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Issue preclusion applies in motion to suppress hearings. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Following the discovery and search of a hidden camera found in a Starbucks restroom, the state charged defendant with multiple counts of second-degree invasions of personal privacy in both Washington and Deschutes counties.&#160; In Washington County, defendant was convicted in a stipulated facts trial following the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion.&#160; Defendant filed a nearly identical suppression motion in Deschutes County.&#160; The Deschutes County court denied the motion, concluding that it was precluded from determining the merits because it had already been heard and decided by the Washington County court. On appeal, defendant argues that the Deschutes County court erred in ruling that issue preclusion barred defendant from relitigating suppression because application of the doctrine infringes in defendant’s right to a jury trial and the decision on the motion to suppress is distinct from and not essential to a decision as to defendant’s guilt.&#160; The court rejects both of those arguments.&#160; The trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of issue preclusion did not infringe on defendant’s right to a jury trial because a suppression court does not decide facts necessary for conviction, but resolves preliminary questions as to the admissibility of evidence.&#160; The doctrine was applicable in the Deschutes County hearing because the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress was necessary to defendant’s judgment of conviction in Washington County and, hence, was essential to a final determination on the merits in that case.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A157904.pdf State v. Ipsen], 288 Or App 402 (2017) (A157904) (Tookey, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Motion to Suppress—Right Against Self-Incrimination—Invocation and Waiver'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant unequivocally invoked his right against self-incrimination when he said, “I’m done talking.”&#160; Defendant’s later statements were not voluntary because they were prompted, there was no material change in circumstances between defendant’s invocation and the questioning, and defendant remained in custody throughout the encounter. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Police officers were dispatched to department store parking lot after two women were observed leaving the store with merchandise they had not paid for.&#160; When two loss-prevention officers and a mall security guard attempted to stop the women, defendant intervened.&#160; The police officers stopped defendant in the mall parking lot.&#160; The officers removed defendant from his vehicle, handcuffed and read Miranda to him, and placed him in the back of a patrol car.&#160; On the way to the jail, an officer questioned defendant about his ownership of the car, and defendant said, “I’m done talking.”&#160; The officer continued to question defendant.&#160; During booking at the jail, the officer handed defendant a charge list, and defendant responded, “How the hell? Fucking robbery, really.”&#160; Thereafter, the officer and defendant had an exchange, during which defendant gave an account of the events.&#160; During a suppression hearing, defendant argued that he had invoked his right to silence when he said “I’m done talking.”&#160; The state agreed, but argued that defendant reinitiated contact when he said, “How the hell? Fucking robbery, really?”&#160; The trial court agreed with the state and denied suppression.&#160; The state offered the exchange that occurred at the jail into evidence at trial.&#160; The court concludes that defendant unequivocally invoked his right against self-incrimination when he said, “I’m done talking.”&#160; Additionally, the court concludes that defendant did not voluntarily waive that right; defendant’s statements were not unprompted, there was no material change in circumstances between his invocation and the purported waiver, and defendant remained in custody throughout the encounter.&#160; Because the trial court’s admission of defendant’s statements was not harmless, reversal is required. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158830.pdf State v. Schrepfer], 288 Or App 429 (2017) (James, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Motion to Suppress—Preservation—Sufficiency of one-page motion'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Motion to Suppress—Preservation—Sufficiency of one-page motion'''</div></td></tr> </table>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26351&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T01:08:56Z

<p></p> <table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 01:08, January 22, 2018</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 31:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 31:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161281.pdf State v. M.S.S.K.], 289 Or App 450 (2017) (Egan, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161281.pdf State v. M.S.S.K.], 289 Or App 450 (2017) (Egan, P.J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Civil <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">COMMITMENT </del>==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Civil <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Commitment</ins>==</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Civil Commitment—Advice of Outcomes—Plain Error'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Civil Commitment—Advice of Outcomes—Plain Error'''</div></td></tr> </table>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26350&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T01:08:29Z

<p></p> <a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&amp;diff=26350&amp;oldid=26349">Show changes</a>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26349&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T01:03:15Z

<p></p> <table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 01:03, January 22, 2018</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>DRAFTER'S NOTES:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>DRAFTER'S NOTES:</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>newest review integrated: Dec <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">6</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>newest review integrated: Dec <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">20</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>oldest review integrated: Nov 1</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>oldest review integrated: Nov 1</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 22:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 22:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158678.pdf State v. Lopez-Minjarez], 289 Or App 403 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158678.pdf State v. Lopez-Minjarez], 289 Or App 403 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Civil COMMITMENT ==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Civil Commitment—Advice of Outcomes—Plain Error'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial court plainly erred in failing to advise appellant that possible results of commitment proceeding included voluntarily treatment or conditional release.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A163250.pdf State v. D.A.R.], 289 Or App 435 (2017) (Per Curiam)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Crimes ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Crimes ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 126:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 134:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160497.pdf State v. Shields], 289 Or App 44 (2017) (Shorr, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160497.pdf State v. Shields], 289 Or App 44 (2017) (Shorr, J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Defenses—Jury Instructions—Choice of Evils/Duress'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Error to refuse choice of evils and duress instructions where defendant presented evidence that he committed crimes to prevent imminent injury to his daughter.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first- and second-degree burglary and third-degree theft and assigns error to the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the choice-of-evils and duress defenses. In the light most favorable to defendant, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that defendant participated in the crimes because his co-defendant’s brother threatened serious harm to defendant’s daughter. Defendant testified that the brother, who had a reputation for being a dangerous man, had threatened that if “I didn’t want anything to happen to my daughter, I would do what [codefendant] told me to do.”&#160; Defendant did not have a phone to call his daughter. The arresting officer also testified that defendant asked him to “please find [daughter]” and stated that if she was not home then [codefendant’s brother] has her.” The trial court declined to give the instruction in part because it did not find defendant’s testimony credible. The appellate court reverses, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which that the jury could find that defendant’s commission of the crime was “necessary” to avoid the threatened injury (choice of evils) and that he had been coerced into the commission of the crimes by a threat of imminent unlawful force (duress).&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160190.pdf State v. Paul], 289 Or App 408 (2017) (James, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Delinquency ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Delinquency ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 134:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 150:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161116.pdf State v. M.V.L.], 288 Or App 845 (2017) (Per Curiam)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161116.pdf State v. M.V.L.], 288 Or App 845 (2017) (Per Curiam)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Juvenile Dependency—Active Efforts Determination—Appeal''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial court’s determination that DHS had made active efforts to reunify family as required by Indian Child Welfare Act not appealable where judgments on appeal did not rule on any affirmative requests for relief or otherwise modify rights or duties of the parties.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A164955.pdf Dept. of Human Services v. A.M.G.], 289 Or App 440 (2017) (Per Curiam)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Dependency ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Dependency ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 252:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 274:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155198.pdf State v. Rice], 289 Or App 282 (2017) (Hadlock, C.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155198.pdf State v. Rice], 289 Or App 282 (2017) (Hadlock, C.J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Evidence—Vouching—Plain Error'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Witness’s testimony that she “totally believed” victim not plain error because plausible that defendant strategically chose not to object.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from a judgment for first-degree sexual abuse and assigns error to the trial court’s failure to sua sponte strike a witness’s testimony that she “totally believed” the victim. Evidence at trial established that defendant moved in with B, her mother, and brother, when B was seven to eight years old. B testified that defendant touched her vaginal area over her clothes in 2012, when she was 13. B shared that information with her friend, D, and later, with D’s mother, Strawn. Strawn testified that she did not immediately share B’s report because B asked her not to but she “totally believed” B’s story. B also later told her mother, who did not confront defendant or disclose the incident.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant’s theory at trial was that B fabricated the allegations. In support of that defense, defendant tried to highlight the inconsistencies in B’s account of the incident and Strawn and B’s mother’s failures to report the incident, suggesting that they did not report the abuse because they did not believe B.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The court concludes that although Strawn’s testimony was impermissible vouching, it is not plain error because it is plausible that defendant made the strategic choice not to object to the error. The court also concludes that even if the error were plain, it would not exercise its discretion to correct the error because it was a bench trial, Strawn was not an expert witness, and the statement was made in passing. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Judge Duncan dissents, contending that there is no “plausible” reason, given defendant’s theory of the case, for his failure to object and that the court should exercise its discretion to correct the error, as it has in other plain error vouching cases.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"> </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A157670.pdf State v. Cone], 289 Or App 391 (2017) (Garrett, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Evidence—Jury Instructions—Less Satisfactory Evidence'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial court did not error in refusing to give less satisfactory evidence instruction where party failed to demonstrate that video footage was stronger evidence than the other evidence presented by the state.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a vehicle and first-degree theft by receiving, and assigns error to the trial court’s failure to give the less satisfactory evidence instruction. Evidence at trial established that defendant sold a trailer to a scrap metal recycling center. Defendant signed a receipt, and the recycling center copied defendant’s driver’s license as part of that transaction.&#160; The recycling center also made a video recording of defendant driving the trailer over a scale used to weigh scrap metal. Later, the owner of the recycling center showed that video to an officer investigating theft of the trailer. At trial, the owner’s wife testified that she provided a copy of the video to the officer. The owner and his wife also testified that they knew defendant because they had purchased scrap metal from him on several prior occasions. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant requested the less satisfactory evidence instruction because the state failed to produce the video at trial. A trial court abuses its discretion if it refuses to give the less satisfactory evidence instruction where the party has shown that there is other evidence that is reasonably available on a fact in issue and the jury could conclude that the missing evidence is stronger and more satisfactory than the evidence offered. The court concludes that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, defendant established that the video footage was reasonably available to the state. But the court holds that defendant failed to establish that the video footage was stronger evidence than defendant’s signed receipt, a photocopy of his driver’s license, and the two witnesses who identified defendant as the person who brought the trailer to the scrap yard.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161366.pdf State v. West], 289 Or App 415 (2017) (James, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Extradition ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Extradition ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 396:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 442:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158431.pdf State v. Esquivel], 288 Or App 755 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158431.pdf State v. Esquivel], 288 Or App 755 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Inventory Exception'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Inventory policy permitting opening of closed containers “designed” for holding “valuables” permitted warrantless search of small, black, nylon case apparently designed for holding a small computer hard drive or game console and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine and menacing and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence. Salem police discovered the methamphetamine during an inventory search of defendant following his arrest for menacing. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant argues that the search violated Article I, section 9, because it was not authorized by the Salem Police Department’s inventory policy or, alternatively, because the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad. The policy authorizes officers to open closed containers “designed for” holding money “and/or other valuables.” Pursuant to that policy, a Salem officer opened a hard, black, nylon case that he found in defendant’s backpack that appeared to be a container for holding a small computer hard drive or video game console. The court concludes that the search fell within the policy because cases for small electronics fall within the scope of closed containers designed for holding “other valuables.” The court also concludes that the lack of a definition of valuables does not render the policy unconstitutionally overbroad because “valuables” is a category of property with sufficiently clear boundaries to impose the constitutionally required limitation on officer discretion. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Judge James concurs, acknowledging that although the court’s decision is supported by the appellate court’s case law, that case law rests on dubious analytical foundations and introduces significant discretion into the inventory exception.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161362.pdf State v. Cleland], 289 Or App 379 (2017) (Lagesen, P.J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Seizure—Traffic Stop Extension'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">An officer may not inquire into unrelated matters if those inquiries extend the length of the stop unless there is separate legal justification. Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a restricted weapon and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Evidence during the suppression hearing established that an officer stopped defendant for bicycling without a headlight, a traffic violation, and because defendant “vaguely” matched the description of a male suspected of a possible residential burglary. After telling defendant his reasons for the stop and checking defendant’s identification, the officer explained why there were so many police vehicles in the area.&#160; Defendant repeatedly put his hands in his pockets after being told not to do so. After defendant put his hands in his pockets a third time, the officer conducted an officer safety patdown, which led to his discovery of a methamphetamine pipe and a restricted weapon. Defendant concedes that the officer had probable cause to stop him for the traffic violation and that his repeated conduct of putting his hands in his pockets raised legitimate officer safety concerns.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The issue on appeal is whether defendant was lawfully stopped during the officer safety patdown. The court concludes that defendant was unlawfully detained. The police may lawfully inquire into unrelated matters during an unavoidable lull in a lawful traffic stop so long as those inquiries do not result in any further restriction of movement. An officer may not inquire into unrelated matters if those inquiries extend the length of the stop unless there is separate legal justification. Here, the state failed to prove that the officer was still lawfully processing the traffic stop for the headlight violation at the time of the patdown. The state also failed to show that officer’s subjective belief that defendant may have been involved in the suspected burglary was objectively reasonable. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159279.pdf State v. Blackstone], 289 Or App 421 (2017) (Aoyagi, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Sentencing ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Sentencing ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26348&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:59:34Z

<p></p> <table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 00:59, January 22, 2018</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 14:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 14:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158592.pdf State v. Welch], 289 Or App 118 (2017) (Shorr, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158592.pdf State v. Welch], 289 Or App 118 (2017) (Shorr, J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Appellate Review—Jury Instructions''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Appellate court will only review accuracy of jury instruction actually submitted to the trial court notwithstanding conceded “typographical” error.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of felony murder, manslaughter, and first-degree assault and assigns error to the trial court’s rejection of a special injury instruction on felony murder.&#160; The proposed instruction stated in part:&#160; “If the felony was completed, terminated, or withdrawn from prior to the coparticipant’s ''commission of the felony'', this may be sufficient to break the causal connection between the felony and the homicide * * *.”&#160; Although defendant and the state agree that the proposed instruction contains a typographical error in that the italicized portion should state “commission of the homicide,” the appellate court concludes that it must review the jury instruction actually submitted.&#160; Because, as the parties agree, the submitted instruction was not a correct statement of the law, the trial court did not error in refusing to give it.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158678.pdf State v. Lopez-Minjarez], 289 Or App 403 (2017) (James, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Crimes ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Crimes ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 300:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 308:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156053.pdf Holbrook v. Amsberry], 289 Or App 226 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156053.pdf Holbrook v. Amsberry], 289 Or App 226 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''PCR—Inadequate Assistance of Counsel—Inadequate Investigation'''</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial counsel rendered constitutionally inadequate representation by failing to conduct adequate investigation in preparation for dangerous-offender sentencing proceeding, which prejudiced petitioner. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The post-conviction court granted petitioner/defendant post-conviction relief on grounds that his defense counsel had rendered constitutionally inadequate representation during a presentence hearing concerning whether petitioner was a dangerous offender who suffered from &quot;severe personality disorder,&quot; ORS 161.725(1)(s). Specifically, the post-conviction court concluded that defense counsel provided inadequate assistance by failing to (1) reasonably investigate and consult with an expert before determining that cross-examination of the state's psychiatrist alone was appropriate and (2) present testimony from a defense expert to rebut the psychiatrist's testimony that petitioner had an antisocial personality disorder.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The post-conviction court vacated petitioner's dangerous-offender sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the grounds that defense counsel was inadequate in failing to investigate and consult with an expert. On review, the state contends that the Court of Appeals erred because (1) defense counsel's tactical decision to rely on cross-examination without consulting an expert was reasonable and (2) petitioner did not show it was &quot;reasonably probable&quot; that he suffered prejudice.&#160; The Court affirms the post-conviction court's and Court of Appeals' conclusions that defense counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Although defense counsel knew that the state's psychiatrist would rely on petitioner's juvenile history to conclude that petitioner had a conduct disorder before age 15 and that the expert's diagnosis of petitioner as having an antisocial personality disorder was insufficiently supported by the information contained in the report, he did not decide to investigate petitioner's background to confirm or dispel the accuracy of that data or complete the record. That was inadequate in view of the markedly enhanced sentence petitioner faced during dangerous-offender sentencing proceeding. In view of the nature and complexity of the hearing, defense counsel's decision not to consult an expert concerning the state's diagnosis was also not a reasonable exercise of professional skill and judgment because the decision was not an informed one. The court also concludes that defense counsel's errors prejudiced him because, given the uses to which counsel could have put the information contained in a defense report, there is more than a mere possibility that that the jury could have rejected the state's contention that petitioner suffered from a severe personality disorder.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064185.pdf Richardson v. Belleque], 362 Or 236 (2017) (Nakamoto, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Search and Seizure ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Search and Seizure ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26347&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:56:41Z

<p></p> <table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 00:56, January 22, 2018</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 6:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 6:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Appeals ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Appeals ==</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Appeals—Justiciability—Mootness''' &#160;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Appeals—Justiciability—Mootness''' &#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 430:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 431:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158880.pdf State v. McFerrin], 289 Or App 96 (2017) (Tookey, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158880.pdf State v. McFerrin], 289 Or App 96 (2017) (Tookey, J.)</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Sentencing—Restitution—Plain Error''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Trial court plainly erred in imposing restitution for criminal conduct that defendant never admitted and of which he was not convicted.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant appeals from the trial court’s supplemental judgment imposing restitution following his no contest plea to 30 property offenses. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court’s restitution award is erroneous because it imposed restitution (1) for crimes that were committed only by defendant’s codefendant, (2) that arose from criminal activity that neither defendant nor his codefendant were ever charged, and (3) arose from alleged crimes that occurred outside the time period alleged in the joint indictment. The state contends that defendant’s arguments are unpreserved and not reviewable as plain error. The court concludes that the trial court plainly erred in imposing restitution. It exercises its discretion to correct the error in view of the gravity of the error, because defendant provided some notice to the trial court of its error, and remanding for resentencing does not severely undermine notions of judicial efficiency.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A157945.pdf State v. Benz], 289 Or App 366 (2017) (Garrett, J.)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Sentencing—Stipulated Sentence—Appellate Review''' </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Defendant’s assignment of error challenging a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement not reviewable on appeal.&#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162301.pdf State v. Nelson], 289 Or App 373 (2017) (Per Curiam)</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Veterans &amp; Military ==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>== Veterans &amp; Military ==</div></td></tr> </table>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26346&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:56:01Z

<p></p> <a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&amp;diff=26346&amp;oldid=26345">Show changes</a>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26345&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:49:56Z

<p></p> <a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&amp;diff=26345&amp;oldid=26344">Show changes</a>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26344&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:46:51Z

<p></p> <a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&amp;diff=26344&amp;oldid=26343">Show changes</a>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&diff=26343&oldid=prev 2018-01-22T00:40:38Z

<p></p> <a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Main/2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic&amp;diff=26343&amp;oldid=26342">Show changes</a>

Wt.elkhorn@gmail.com