Oregon Appellate Ct - Oct. 7, 2015
by: Abassos, Cmaloney and Alarson • October 7, 2015 • no comments
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
In light of State v. Mills, 354 Or 350 (2013) (decided after the trial in this case) the Court of Appeals remands to allow defendant the opportunity to challenge venue properly. In Mills, the court held that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution does not require the state to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, as though it were an element of the crime. Consequently, venue must be challenged pretrial, rather than in a motion for judgment of acquittal. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152856.pdf State v Mulvaine], 274 Or App 213 (2015). | In light of State v. Mills, 354 Or 350 (2013) (decided after the trial in this case) the Court of Appeals remands to allow defendant the opportunity to challenge venue properly. In Mills, the court held that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution does not require the state to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, as though it were an element of the crime. Consequently, venue must be challenged pretrial, rather than in a motion for judgment of acquittal. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152856.pdf State v Mulvaine], 274 Or App 213 (2015). | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2015-10- | + | {{wl-publish: 2015-10-07 23:08:49 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} |
| − | {{wl-publish: 2015-10- | + | {{wl-publish: 2015-10-07 23:08:49 -0700 | cmaloney }} |
| − | {{wl-publish: 2015-10- | + | {{wl-publish: 2015-10-07 23:08:49 -0700 | alarson }} |
Revision as of 23:27, October 9, 2015
Miranda Warnings May Be Required When Police Use Probable Cause to Confront a Suspect
Expressly confronting a suspect with evidence of probable cause to arrest may make the circumstances sufficiently compelling to require Miranda warnings. Here, several police officers and two DHS workers went to defendant’s house to arrest her friend. Defendant said that her friend wasn't there. But officers found the friend hiding in the backyard. The friend said he'd been there since the officers arrived. An officer then asked defendant where her friend was when the police arrived. Defendant said that she didn’t know her friend was at the house. The officer responded that he knew she was lying because he had spoken with her friend, that she could be in trouble for hindering a prosecution, but that he had no intention of taking her into custody if she was honest and cooperative. Such a statement conveyed to the defendant that, if she was not “honest and cooperative,” she would be arrested for hindering prosecution. At that point, the police encounter took on coercive overtones which, in the context of significant police activity on defendant’s property, created compelling circumstances in which Miranda warnings were required. State v Heise-Fay, 274 Or App 196 (2015).
Financial Assessments Must Be Based in Statutory Authority
A court may only impose a fine when there is statutory authority to do so. Here, the court imposed $60.00 as a "state mandatory amt", in addition to a conviction fine, attorney’s fees, and a bench probation assessment. Because the judgment did not identify a statutory basis for the “state mandatory amt”, and it was clearly labeled to separate it from the other assessments, it was an error for the court to impose the fine. State v. Nutt 274 Or App 217 (2015).
Venue - Challenges to Venue Must Be Made in a Pretrial Motion, Not in a MJOA
In light of State v. Mills, 354 Or 350 (2013) (decided after the trial in this case) the Court of Appeals remands to allow defendant the opportunity to challenge venue properly. In Mills, the court held that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution does not require the state to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, as though it were an element of the crime. Consequently, venue must be challenged pretrial, rather than in a motion for judgment of acquittal. State v Mulvaine, 274 Or App 213 (2015).
