Oregon Supreme Court, September 12, 2013
by: Alex Flood and Abassos • September 12, 2013 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *Prosecutorial Discretion – Privileges or Immunities Clause Not Violated So Long As Decision Has Rational Basis *Sentence Enhancement Facts Do Not Need to ...") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''Sentence Enhancement Facts Do Not Need to be Plead in the Indictment''' | '''Sentence Enhancement Facts Do Not Need to be Plead in the Indictment''' | ||
| − | Neither Article VII, section 5 nor Article I, section 11 is violated when sentence enhancement facts that were not pleaded in the grand jury's indictment are used at sentencing. Article VII, section 5 requires only that a grand jury find probable cause of the statutorily designated elements of a crime. For the purposes of sentence enhancement, Article I, Section 11, only requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of charges. It does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Here, a defendant was sentenced as a "dangerous offender" (ORS 161.725). The Court upholds the enhanced sentencing even though the grand jury was not presented with any facts that would support such a charge. | + | Neither Article VII, section 5 nor Article I, section 11 is violated when sentence enhancement facts that were not pleaded in the grand jury's indictment are used at sentencing. Article VII, section 5 requires only that a grand jury find probable cause of the statutorily designated elements of a crime. For the purposes of sentence enhancement, Article I, Section 11, only requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of charges. It does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Here, a defendant was sentenced as a "dangerous offender" (ORS 161.725). The Court upholds the enhanced sentencing even though the grand jury was not presented with any facts that would support such a charge. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059760.pdf State v. Reinke] |
{{wl-publish: 2013-09-15 12:21:31 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | {{wl-publish: 2013-09-15 12:21:31 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | ||
Revision as of 12:25, September 16, 2013
A Prosecutor's Charging Decision Is Constitutional So Long As It Has a Rational Basis
A prosecutor does not violate Article I, section 20, in bringing multiple charges, so long as there is a rational basis underlying the decision. Here, a prosecutor aggregated “numerous theft transactions” over 16 months into 16 theft charges. The basis for the decision was that organizing the charges “month-to-month” would provide clarity to the jury. In holding that the prosecutor’s use of discretion did not violate Article I, section 20, the court overrules State v. Freeland, 295 Or 367, 375 (1983), which required prosecutors to act pursuant to a coherent, systemic policy. State v. Savastano, 354 Or ___(2013)
Sentence Enhancement Facts Do Not Need to be Plead in the Indictment
Neither Article VII, section 5 nor Article I, section 11 is violated when sentence enhancement facts that were not pleaded in the grand jury's indictment are used at sentencing. Article VII, section 5 requires only that a grand jury find probable cause of the statutorily designated elements of a crime. For the purposes of sentence enhancement, Article I, Section 11, only requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of charges. It does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Here, a defendant was sentenced as a "dangerous offender" (ORS 161.725). The Court upholds the enhanced sentencing even though the grand jury was not presented with any facts that would support such a charge. State v. Reinke
