Case Reviews

Revision as of 13:50, March 12, 2019

Go here to see a list of:

2019 Case Summaries by Topic'

2018 Case Summaries by Topic

2017 Case Summaries by Topic

2016 Case Summaries by Topic

2015 Case Summaries by Topic

___________________________________________________________________

Oregon Supreme Court--February 28,2019

EVIDENCE — Hearsay, official records, and business records. Records generated by police agencies are not admissible as business records but may be admissible as official records. Reversed and remanded for new trial. State v. Edmonds 364 Or 410 (February 28, 2019) (Balmer) (Clackamas County, Van Dyk)

FAILURE TO APPEAR — 'Released from custody' element of offense A book-and-release process ordered by a judge is not 'custody,' as that term is used in the failure-to-appear statutes, and therefore the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Reversed. State v. McColly 364 Or 464 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Tillamook County, Stevens)

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause Post-conviction petitioner was advised of potential immigration consequences at the time of his plea, and therefore his ignorance of those consequences did not toll the statute of limitations. Affirmed. The court also noted that the record raised the issue of whether the petitioner's mental disabilities were a basis to toll the statute of limitations. But, because petitioner alleged, in a declaration attached to the petition, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known the immigration consequences, the court held that he was mentally competent to understand the significance of immigration consequences. The court further noted that the evidence of defendant's mental disabilities did not show that it prevented him from consulting with counsel or timely filing a petition. Perez-Rodriguez v. State 364 Or 489 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson, Balmer dissenting) (Washington County, Kohl)

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause Post-conviction petitioner was unaware of potential immigration consequences until he was placed in deportation proceedings, by which time the post-conviction statute of limitations had expired, and therefore the statute of limitations was tolled. Reversed and remanded. The court explained that, because neither the court nor defense counsel told petitioner of the possibility of immigration consequences, a reasonable layperson in petitioner's position would have had no reason to investigate or consult with counsel. The resulting rule is similar to the civil discovery rule for tolling a statute of limitations. Balmer dissented, arguing that petitioner had all the facts necessary to his claim. Balmer would have held that the petitioner's legal ignorance did not make his failure to seek counsel reasonable.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ___________________________________________________________________
-==Oregon Appellate Court--February 28,2019==
+==Oregon Supreme Court--February 28,2019==
+'''EVIDENCE — Hearsay, official records, and business records.'''
+Records generated by police agencies are not admissible as business records but may be admissible as official records. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
+[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7118/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Edmonds] 364 Or 410 (February 28, 2019) (Balmer) (Clackamas County, Van Dyk)
+'''FAILURE TO APPEAR — 'Released from custody' element of offense'''
+A book-and-release process ordered by a judge is not 'custody,' as that term is used in the failure-to-appear statutes, and therefore the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Reversed.
+[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7119/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. McColly] 364 Or 464 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Tillamook County, Stevens)
+'''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause'''
+Post-conviction petitioner was advised of potential immigration consequences at the time of his plea, and therefore his ignorance of those consequences did not toll the statute of limitations. Affirmed.
+The court also noted that the record raised the issue of whether the petitioner's mental disabilities were a basis to toll the statute of limitations. But, because petitioner alleged, in a declaration attached to the petition, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known the immigration consequences, the court held that he was mentally competent to understand the significance of immigration consequences.
+The court further noted that the evidence of defendant's mental disabilities did not show that it prevented him from consulting with counsel or timely filing a petition.
+[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7120/download#page=1&zoom=auto Perez-Rodriguez v. State] 364 Or 489 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson, Balmer dissenting) (Washington County, Kohl)
+'''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause'''
+Post-conviction petitioner was unaware of potential immigration consequences until he was placed in deportation proceedings, by which time the post-conviction statute of limitations had expired, and therefore the statute of limitations was tolled. Reversed and remanded.
+The court explained that, because neither the court nor defense counsel told petitioner of the possibility of immigration consequences, a reasonable layperson in petitioner's position would have had no reason to investigate or consult with counsel. The resulting rule is similar to the civil discovery rule for tolling a statute of limitations.
+Balmer dissented, arguing that petitioner had all the facts necessary to his claim. Balmer would have held that the petitioner's legal ignorance did not make his failure to seek counsel reasonable.
+[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7123/download#page=1&zoom=auto Gutale v. State] 364 Or 502 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Washington County, Bailey)

Namespaces

Variants

Search

Views

Actions

Library Collections

COVID-19

Diversity Resources

Additional Resources

OCDLA Legislative

Webinars & Podcasts

Expert Rooms

Legal Collections

Motions

Local Collections

Legal Links

Disclaimer

Tools

Case Reviews

Revision as of 13:50, March 12, 2019

Oregon Supreme Court--February 28,2019