Oregon Appellate Court, April 24, 2019
by: Rankin Johnson • May 2, 2019 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances''' Police questio...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety | ||
− | + | RESTITUTION - Damages supporting restitution award | |
+ | EVIDENCE - Impeachment | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | ||
Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/23118/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Edgar] 297 Or App 193 (April 24, 2019) (Egan) (Douglas County, Marshall) | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/23118/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Edgar] 297 Or App 193 (April 24, 2019) (Egan) (Douglas County, Marshall) | ||
− | '''RESTITUTION- | + | '''RESTITUTION - Damages supporting restitution award''' |
Trial court erred in imposing restitution for the subjective value of the victim's inconvenience. Reversed and remanded. | Trial court erred in imposing restitution for the subjective value of the victim's inconvenience. Reversed and remanded. | ||
Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/23166/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Xiu-Chable] 297 Or App 228 (April 24, 2019) (Hadlock) (Multnomah County, Rees) | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/23166/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Xiu-Chable] 297 Or App 228 (April 24, 2019) (Hadlock) (Multnomah County, Rees) | ||
− | ''' | + | '''EVIDENCE - Impeachment''' |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | Trial court erred by excluding evidence that, shortly before being accused of theft, defendant accused the victim of sexual improprieties and discussed suing him. Reversed and remanded. | |
− | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/ | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/23061/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Andrew] 297 Or App 299 (April 24, 2019) (Per Curiam) (Marion County, James) |
+ | {{wl-publish: 2019-05-02 08:16:23 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} |
Latest revision as of 08:16, May 3, 2019
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances
Police questioning about evidence observed during a traffic stop was coercive. Reversed and remanded.
During a traffic stop, police observed a plastic bag containing a white substance in the pocket of a pair of pants in defendant's car. Defendant was directed out of the vehicle while a taser was pointed at him, handcuffed, and asked what was in the bag. Defendant answered that there were "pills" in the bag, received Miranda warnings, and answered more questions about the contents of the bag, other contraband in the car, and his recent methamphetamine sales.
The Court of Appeals held that circumstances were compelling at the time of defendant's initial statements, and subsequent statements did not remove the taint of the unlawful questioning.
State v. Edgar 297 Or App 193 (April 24, 2019) (Egan) (Douglas County, Marshall)
RESTITUTION - Damages supporting restitution award
Trial court erred in imposing restitution for the subjective value of the victim's inconvenience. Reversed and remanded.
Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to perform the duties of a driver. The victim's car was totaled, and the victim sought restitution for increased transportation expenses for several months before buying a new car. Defendant argued that the victim should have bought a new car within two weeks. The court improperly awarded $1300 as a subjective determination of the victim's loss.
State v. Xiu-Chable 297 Or App 228 (April 24, 2019) (Hadlock) (Multnomah County, Rees)
EVIDENCE - Impeachment
Trial court erred by excluding evidence that, shortly before being accused of theft, defendant accused the victim of sexual improprieties and discussed suing him. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Andrew 297 Or App 299 (April 24, 2019) (Per Curiam) (Marion County, James)