Oregon Appellate Court - June 5, 2013
by: Alarson and Abassos • June 6, 2013 • no comments
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <summary hidden> | ||
| + | |||
| + | *OEC 803(18a)(b) Requires a Specific Notice with Identified Hearsay Statements | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Items seized during an inventory may not be processed as evidence | ||
| + | |||
| + | </summary> | ||
'''OEC 803(18a)(b) Requires a Specific Notice with Identified Hearsay Statements''' | '''OEC 803(18a)(b) Requires a Specific Notice with Identified Hearsay Statements''' | ||
| − | Providing discovery does not constitute notice under OEC 803(18a)(b) (providing a hearsay exception for statements regarding abuse if they are corroborated and notice is given 15 days before trial | + | Providing discovery does not constitute notice under OEC 803(18a)(b) (providing a hearsay exception for statements regarding abuse if they are corroborated and notice is given 15 days before trial). Here, the state’s notice was legally insufficient where it simply said that any and all hearsay statements in the police reports might be offered. Such a notice identifies no particular statements, witnesses or means by which the statements would be introduced. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A145731.pdf ''State v. Edblom''], 257 Or App ___ (June 5, 2013). |
'''Items seized during an inventory may not be processed as evidence''' | '''Items seized during an inventory may not be processed as evidence''' | ||
| − | When a defendant’s personal property is lawfully secured pursuant to an inventory policy, processing the property as evidence constitutes an unlawful search and seizure (unless another exception applies) [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A145464.pdf ''State v. Lovaina-Burmudez''], 257 Or App ___ (June 5, 2013). | + | When a defendant’s personal property is lawfully secured pursuant to an inventory policy, processing the property as evidence constitutes an unlawful search and seizure (unless another exception applies). The state failed to show defendant's clothing and shoes would have been available to seize had the items not been inventoried unlawfully for purposes of the inevitable discovery doctrine. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A145464.pdf ''State v. Lovaina-Burmudez''], 257 Or App ___ (June 5, 2013). |
{{wl-publish: 2013-06-06 15:21:12 -0700 | Alarson }} | {{wl-publish: 2013-06-06 15:21:12 -0700 | Alarson }} | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2013-06-06 15:21:12 -0700 | abassos}} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:57, August 18, 2013
OEC 803(18a)(b) Requires a Specific Notice with Identified Hearsay Statements
Providing discovery does not constitute notice under OEC 803(18a)(b) (providing a hearsay exception for statements regarding abuse if they are corroborated and notice is given 15 days before trial). Here, the state’s notice was legally insufficient where it simply said that any and all hearsay statements in the police reports might be offered. Such a notice identifies no particular statements, witnesses or means by which the statements would be introduced. State v. Edblom, 257 Or App ___ (June 5, 2013).
Items seized during an inventory may not be processed as evidence
When a defendant’s personal property is lawfully secured pursuant to an inventory policy, processing the property as evidence constitutes an unlawful search and seizure (unless another exception applies). The state failed to show defendant's clothing and shoes would have been available to seize had the items not been inventoried unlawfully for purposes of the inevitable discovery doctrine. State v. Lovaina-Burmudez, 257 Or App ___ (June 5, 2013).
