A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 23, 2014

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

by: Abassos • April 23, 2014 • no comments

(Created page with "<summary hidden> *"I Wish You Were Dead" Is Not a Qualifying Contact for a Stalking Order *Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm ...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<summary hidden>
 
<summary hidden>
 +
The summaries are still in the process of being written:
 +
 
*"I Wish You Were Dead" Is Not a Qualifying Contact for a Stalking Order
 
*"I Wish You Were Dead" Is Not a Qualifying Contact for a Stalking Order
 
*Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough
 
*Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough

Revision as of 18:37, April 24, 2014

The summaries are still in the process of being written.

"I Wish You Were Dead" Is Not a Qualifying Contact for a Stalking Order

The statement "I wish you were dead" is more akin to an "impotent expression of anger or frustration" than the sort of unequivocal threat of imminent and serious violence required of a communication to qualify as one of the contacts required for a stalking protective order. Also, threats to call the police and DHS are not threats of violence at all, much less imminent and serious violence.

CJL v Langford

Forcible Compulsion - Attempted Sex Abuse - Very Aggressively Grabbing Victim's Arm is Enough

There was sufficient evidence that defendant's purpose was to forcibly compel the victim to touch his penis where:

(1) Defendant took victim to a secluded room
(2) Stepped in front of her and exposed his penis; and
(3) "very aggressively" grabbed victim with enough force to leave bruises on her arm.

Thus, defendant's MJOA on attempted sex abuse was appropriately denied.

State v Fox

Coercion - A National Guard Recruiter is a "Public Servant"

The term "public servant" in the coercion statute includes any government employee, including employees of the federal government, as well as anyone who provides a service rendered in the public interest. ORS 163.275. The court reaches this conclusion by using Websters, rejecting defendant's "elaborate" argument stemming from ORS 162.005. Here, defendant was a recruiter for the National Guard and, therefore, both a government employee and "an individual who provides a public service . . . because he assists members of the public." State v Fox