Case Reviews
- Go here to see a list of:
___________________________________________________________________
Oregon Appellate Court 05-04-11
by: Abassos • May 3, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Merger - UUV and PSV Merge
- Merger - Theft
- Merger - DCS and DCS w/in 1000 feet
- TPR - Appeals
U.S. Supreme Court 05-02-11
by: Grapkoch • May 1, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Death Penalty Instructions Upheld
The Court finally issues a criminal opinion today, albeit a per curiam reversal of the Sixth Circuit's decision to grant habeas relief. The case is Bobby v. Mitts, which addressed (1) Whether the State of Ohio offends due process by using the same penalty-phase jury instruction affirmed by this Court in Smith v. Spisak; and (2) Whether clearly established federal law extends the holding of Beck v. Alabama to the penalty phase of a capital trial. In a disposition available here, the Court answers both questions in the negative.
As to the first question, the Court stands by its conclusion in Spisak that the instructions at issue are not contrary to Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (instructions invalid where jurors precluded from considering mitigating factors if such factors are not unanimously found). Here, the scheme instructed jurors that
"When all 12 members of the jury find by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances in each separate count with which [Mitts] has been found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, if any, then you must return such finding to the Court."
According to the Court, there simply is not "a substantial possibility that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge's instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance." Smith v. Spisak, 130 S.Ct. 676 (2010) (quoting Mills).
As to the second question, the Court stresses the important distinction between the absence of juror alternatives at the guilt and sentencing stages of trial. The instructions at issue here informed the jury that, if they made the requisite findings,
"then you must recommend to the Court that the sentence of death be imposed on [Mitts] .On the other hand, [if] after considering all the relevant evidence raised at trial, the evidence and testimony received at this hearing and the arguments of counsel, you find that the state of Ohio failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances with which [Mitts] was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, you will then proceed to determine which of two possible life imprisonment sentences to recommend to the Court."
Below, the Sixth Circuit held that the state court's validation of this command was contrary to the decision in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (the death penalty may not be imposed "when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict").
The Court emphatically rejects that conclusion, stressing that "[t]he concern addressed in Beck was 'the risk of an unwarranted conviction' created when the jury is forced to choose between finding the defendant guilty of a capital offense and declaring him innocent of any wrongdoing." That principle is not directly applicable for the purposes of habeas. Furthermore, the Court notes, even if Beck were directly applicable, informing the jury that its choice was between death and a life sentence gives sufficient assurances to assuage its central concern.
More information on Bobby v. Mitts can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, found here.
Oregon Appellate Court 04-27-11
by: Abassos • April 26, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Prosecutorial Misconduct - Comment on Defendants Failure to Present Evidence
- Upward Departur e- UUW
- 404(3)- Prior Similar Acts to Prove Lack of Consent
- Stop - Ashbaugh
- Venue - Prostitution Over the Phone
- Corroboration - Accomplice Testimony
- Civil Commitment - Dangerousness to Self
U.S. Supreme Court 04-20-11
by: Grapkoch • April 19, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- No Monetary Damages for Inmates Under RLUIPA
Criminal opinions from the Court are still hard to come by these days, but you figure that, at some point, they're going to have to release a few. For now, you'll have to make do with today's opinion in Sossamon v. Texas, which addresses whether states and state officials can be subjected to damages (as opposed to injunctions) for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§2000cc to 2000cc-5.
In pertinent part, Section 3 of RLUIPA provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise" of an institutionalized person unless the government demonstrates that the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest. Enforcement of this provision against states and local political subdivisions affords "appropriate relief against a government."
Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas concludes that this statutory scheme does not provide for monetary damages because
"RLUIPA's authorization of 'appropriate relief against a government,' §2000cc-2(a), is not the unequivocal expression of state consent that our precedents require. 'Appropriate relief' does not so clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity to private suits for damages that we can 'be certain that the State in fact consents' to such a suit."
As you might expect from a good, old-fashioned Thomas opinion, the case involves a strict application of the Eleventh Amendment and principles of sovereign immunity.
More information on the case can be found via SCOTUSblog's case page.'
Oregon Appellate Court 04-20-11
by: Abassos • April 19, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Stop (Hall) - Taking ID or information can be a stop under Ashbaugh
- Aiding and Abetting - Concurrence
- Stop - Reconsideration in light of Ashbaugh
- Self-Incrimination - Compelling Circumstances
- Coercion - Attempt
- Attempted Aggravated Murder - Intent Instruction
- Exploitation/Attenuation - Minimal Factual Nexus
- Restitution Within 90 Days - Good Cause to Extend
Oregon Appellate Court 04-13-11
by: Abassos • April 12, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Speedy Trial
- Robbery I - "Use" of a Weapon
- Prior Bad Acts - Intent
- 200% rule - Gun Minimum
- Assault II - By means of a dangerous weapon
- Failure to Register as a Sex Offender - No Duty to Provide Address Verification
- Failure to Register as a Sex Offender - Venue
Oregon Supreme Court 04-07-11
by: Abassos • April 6, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Probable Cause - Dog Sniffs
- Notice of Appeal - Supplemental Judgment
Two criminal rulings from the Oregon Supreme Court today, one of them substantive and one of them procedural:
Oregon Supreme Court 04-06-11
by: Abassos • April 5, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases: Stop - Attenuation Confrontation Clause - Return of Service PCR Prejudice - Consecutive Sentences
→ read the full summaries...Oregon Appellate Court 03-30-11
by: Abassos • March 29, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- OEC 609(3) Prior Conviction - 15 year period
- Rape/Sex Abuse: Forcible Compulsion - Mental State
- Due Process - Fresh Pursuit Act
- Merger means Merger of Conviction
Oregon Supreme Court 03-25-11
by: Abassos • March 24, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Felony Elude/Resisting Arrest - Tribal Officers are Officers
- Evidence - Motive
Oregon Appellate Court 03-23-11
by: Abassos • March 22, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- DUII - Intoxilyzer Malfunction: When a Card is Complete
- Traffic Stop: Passenger/Free to Leave
- Assault I: Dangerous Weapon
- Waiver of Counsel: Voluntariness
Oregon Appellate Court 03-16-11
by: Abassos • March 15, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Stop - Objective Probable Cause
- Hearsay - Unavailability
- Accomplice Liability - Natural and Probable Consequences
- Sex Cases - There Shall be No Diagnosis in the Absence of Physical Findings
Oregon Supreme Court 03-10-11
by: Grapkoch • March 9, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Evidence: Intent/Motive vs. Character Under OEC 404(3)
- Plea Agreements: Legal Test for Determining their Existence and Terms
- Grand Jury: Resubmitting Charges and ORS 132.430(2)
- Pre-indictment Delay and Due Process
The Supreme Court offers up substantive analysis and some significant legal standards in today's opinions. At issue are the following: (1) other-crimes evidence under OEC 404; (2) the legal standards governing the interpretation of plea agreements; (3) the requisite findings for authorizing resubmission of charges to the grand jury; and (4) the standard for analyzing pre-indictment delay under the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that issues (3) and (4) are from the same case-State v. Stokes-but have been separated below for ease of analysis.
Oregon Appellate Court 03-09-11
by: Abassos • March 8, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Sex Abuse - Sufficiency of Evidence of Penetration (Plain Error)
- Sex Abuse - Expert Diagnosis of Abuse w/o Physical Evidence (Plain Error)
- Civil Commitment - Sufficiency of Evidence of Risk of Harm
- Dependency: Sufficiency of Evidence for Judgment of Adoption)
- Failure to Report Accident- Mens Rea as to Triggering Injury
Today's COA offerings are relatively light on actual criminal law. They involve another Southard error, both a dependency and a commitment case, and one DMV license revocation for failure to report.
→ read the full summaries...U.S. Supreme Court 03-07-11
by: Abassos • March 6, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Post-Conviction Access to DNA Evidence
Rejoice all ye nerds!!! A potentially useful new post-conviction nugget was handed down by the SCOTUS today. In its opinion in Skinner v. Switzer, the Court held that federal courts possesses subject matter jurisdiction over civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the purpose of seeking access to DNA evidence. In explaining this conclusion, the Court reasoned that
"[a]s the Court explained in Feldman, 460 U. S., at 487, and reiterated in Exxon, 544 U. S., at 286, a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts, but a statute or rule governing the decision may be challenged in a federal action. Skinner's federal case falls within the latter category. There was, therefore, no lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over Skinner's federal suit."
Id. at 10 (footnotes omitted).
The Court further explained that a prisoner properly invokes § 1983-rather than habeas corpus-when seeking only access to DNA evidence that may have a bearing on guilt or innocence because that remedy is wholly distinct from claims such as Brady violations. The opponent to DNA access argued that
"[a]lthough Skinner's immediate plea is simply for an order requiring DNA testing, his ultimate aim is to use the test results as a platform for attacking his conviction."
In rejecting this as a basis for denying relief, the Court brushes aside the perceived overlap with Brady claims and simply notes that the opponent's argument is telling: An order for DNA does not seek an "immediate or speedier" release from custody, while any potential Brady claim does. Thus, § 1983 is the proper avenue to pursue.
Be wary, though, as the Court does include this important caveat to its decision, which has the effect of severely narrowing the class of claims over which federal jurisdiction properly extends:
"We note, however, that the Court's decision in Osborne severely limits the federal action a state prisoner may bring for DNA testing. Osborne rejected the extension of substantive due process to this area and left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law denies him procedural due process."
Oregon Appellate Court 03-02-11
by: Abassos • March 1, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Felony Hit and Run - Who is a "Victim" for Purposes of Merger
- Confessions - Sufficiency of Evidence Corroborating Confession of Sex Abuse
- Improper Diagnosis of Sex Abuse- Harmless Error Analysis
- Sex Abuse- Is Semen a Sexual or Intimate Part of Defendant's Body
- Accomplice Liability- Circumstantial Evidence of Intent
- Accomplice Liability- "Natural and Probable Consequences" Instruction
- DUII Breath Test- Opportunity to Seek Advice of Counsel
- Motions to Suppress: New Crime Exception to the Exclusionary Rule
- Substantive Issue Unidentified
The COA offered up nine new opinions today, although four of those are per curiam dispositions. Among other issues, the COA addresses who is a "victim" for the purposes of hit-and-run, how much corroboration is needed to support a confession of sexual abuse, and whether a certain bodily fluid is part of a defendant's body for the purposes of sex abuse under former ORS 163.415. All in all, the cases are fairly fact-specific, but a few legal nuggets can be found.
U.S. Supreme Court 02-28-11
by: Abassos • February 27, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Confrontation - Ongoing Emergency
This morning the Supreme Court of the United States released a new opinion on the Confrontation Clause: Michigan v. Bryant. Justice Scalia was so upset with the 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Sotomayor that he has declared the Confrontation Clause a shambles. Unfortunately, he's on our side on this issue. The issue is what constitutes an ongoing emergency such that the primary purpose of the statements and of the police is to respond to the ongoing emergency rather than the statements being testimonial. For example, a 911 call during the course of an incident is not testimonial because it is an ongoing emergency. Davis, 547 US at 822. But a domestic violence incident where the officers are at the house and have the two parties separated is testimonial. Hammon. Here, police responded to the scene of a shooting where the shooter was still on the loose and the victim was bleeding to death on the ground in a parking lot. According to the Supremes, the primary purpose inquiry is objective and here, all the objective facts and statements point to an ongoing emergency. More later. Make sure to check out the Confrontation Blog for excellent analysis of this issue. Michigan v. Bryant
Oregon Appellate Court 02-23-11
by: Abassos • February 22, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Jury Trial - Enhancement Facts on Remand for Resentencing
- Jury Trial - In-Trial Waivers and The Prosecutorial "Objection" Revisited
- Miranda Warnings - Exploitation and Pre-Miranda Interrogations
- Using a Child in a Display of Sexual Conduct - Definition of "Permitting"
- Restitution - Contested Amounts and Required Hearings
- Negotiating a Bad Check - Proof of "Knowledge" that a Check will not be Honored
- DUII Diversion - Timeframe for Acts Relevant to Revocation
- Search and Seizure - Traffic Stops and Possessory Interests in Automobiles
- Parole Revocation - Requisite Evidence, Vagueness of Special Conditions and Right to Counsel
- Motion for Reconsideration - Successfully Appealing Denial of MTS
- Diagnosis of Child Sexual Abuse - Plain Error to Admit Absent Physical Corroboration
Another busy day at the COA features 11 new criminal opinions, two of which are resolved per curiam. The issues span a variety of topics, including the application of Blakely on remand, the exploitation-type analysis used for Miranda violations, and possessory interests in automobiles under Article I, section 9. Forgive the lengthiness of the synopses, but many cases address multiple issues-so be sure to give them a good skim.
→ read the full summaries...Oregon Supreme Court 02-17-11
by: Abassos • February 16, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Appellate Acquittal: Remanding for Resentencing
- DUII: Convictions under Former ORS 487.540 as a Predicate for License Revocation
- Use of Anonymous Juries: Requisite Findings and Mitigating Prejudice
Following the trend set by the COA yesterday, the Supremes publish three criminal opinions this morning. Well, almost three. The first is a modification of the Court's instructions on remand in its prior case State v. Sierra. The other two, however, are more substantive.
→ read the full summaries...Oregon Appellate Court 02-16-11
by: Abassos • February 15, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Waiver of Jury Trial - Enhancement Facts
- Waiver of Jury Trial - The Prosecutorial "Objection"
- Waiver of Jury Trial - Conditional Release Agreements not Sufficient
- Unlawful Use of a Weapon - Merger and Lesser-Included Offenses
- Mandatory Terms of Post-Prison Supervision - Mootness
- Motions for New Trial - Appellate Review
- Aiding and Abetting - "Mere Presence" Insufficient
- Money Laundering - Intent to Promote a Future Unlawful Activity
- FDWS: Proof of Suspension's Existence (not Validity) Required
- CAA Fees - Requesting Special Findings of "Ability to Pay"
- Diagnosis of Sexual Abuse - Confirmatory Physical Evidence and OEC 403
- Involuntary Commitment - Sufficiency of the Evidence
- PPS and First Degree Rape - Max Indeterminate Sentence Less Time Served
