A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Court of Appeals 12-08-10

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos • December 7, 2010 • no comments

(Importing text file)
 

Latest revision as of 17:22, December 21, 2012

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

  • DUII Bicycle - Driving Revocation
  • VRO Contempt - Not a Conviction
  • Stalking - Motion to Seal the File
  • Preservation of Jury Instruction Objection - Must except after instructions are read


Contents

DUII - bicycle - driving revocation [edit]

A defendant can have his driving privileges permanently revoked for a bicycle DUII. Defendant argued that since driving privileges aren't required for riding a bicycle the revocation statute shouldn't apply. The appellate court finds that a DUII is a DUII and revocation is required for a third DUII without regard to the manner in which it is committed. State v. Abbey

VRO - Contempt - Not a Conviction [edit]

Contempt of Court is not a crime, even if it is charged in an information or indictment. It's an exercise of the court's inherent judicial authority. Thus, a person found in contempt is neither convicted nor sentenced as is a criminal defendant. State v. Reynolds

Stalking - Motion to Seal the File [edit]

It's not clear that judges have the authority to seal the court file after the respondent wins a stalking order hearing. Respondent argued that his right to be protected from stigma outweighs the public's right to transparency or information. Respondent apparently did not argue why a judge's ability to seal files is necessary to enable courts to perform their judicial function. The appellate court is disinclined to fill in a reason. Cox v. M.A.L.

Preservation - Jury Instruction - Must except after instructions are read [edit]

The trial court's failure to give defendant's requested jury instruction was unreviewable because defendant did not except to the failure immediately after the instructions were read. State v. Pena