Case Reviews
- Go here to see a list of:
___________________________________________________________________
Oregon Supreme Court 05-23-11
by: A stpierre • May 22, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Concealed Handgun Licenses - Medical Marijuana
- Recklessness - Summary Judgment
Oregon Supreme Court 05-19-11
by: Abassos • May 18, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Concealed Handgun Licenses - Medical Marijuana
- Recklessness - Summary Judgment
Oregon Appellate Court 05-18-11
by: Abassos • May 17, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Confessions - Statutory Exclusion for Promises of Leniency
- TPR - Integration
U.S. Supreme Court 05-16-11
by: Grapkoch • May 15, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Police-Created Exigent Circumstances
This morning, the Court issued an opinion in Kentucky v. King, which asked under what circumstances can lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances that preclude warrantless entry? In response to the question, the Court announces the general rule that "[w]here, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed." The Court also notes, in passing, that "[t]here is a strong argument to be made that, at least in most circumstances, the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted." Ginsburg offers the lone dissenting voice.
In this case, the officers were in pursuit of a suspect who had recently been seen conducting a drug transaction. After following the suspect into an apartment complex and hearing a door shut, the officers came upon two apartment doors, unsure of which the suspect had entered. Smelling a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the doorway on the left, the officers knocked "as loud as [they] could" and announced, "'This is the police'" or "'Police, police, police.'" After making these announcements, the officers heard loud noises inside as if something was being moved, and therefore they kicked in the door on the belief that drugs were being destroyed. They found a large quantity of drugs and paraphernalia; later, they found their initial suspect-in the other apartment.
Before applying the foregoing principles, the Court rejects outright at least four tests suggested by lower courts-and one offered by Respondent-in dealing with the doctrine of "police-created exigencies":
- The Court first rejects "the suggestion by the Kentucky Supreme Court that a subjective standard applies whereby courts ask whether the officers in question "deliberately created the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement." The test, the Court stresses, is an objective one-as in virtually all Fourth Amendment circumstances.
- Next, the Court also rejects any application of a foreseeability test, under which courts would ask whether "it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics employed by the police would create the exigent circumstances." Two factors persuade the Court to reject this approach: First, the rule was created on the premise that officers would be acting on some degree of suspicion in the first place; Second, because of the first factor, inquiring into foreseeability would create uncertainty for both investigating officers and lower courts.
- The Court also rejects a test that would automatically invalidate a search based on exigency where the police had probable cause and enough time to secure a warrant. After noting several reasons, the Court bluntly states that "[f]aulting the police for failing to apply for a search warrant at the earliest possible timeafter obtaining probable cause imposes a duty that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
- The Court moves on to reject a test that would hinge on whether the police acted "contrary to standard or good law enforcement practices (or to the policies or practices of theirjurisdictions)," because "[t]his approach fails to provide clear guidance for law enforcement officersand authorizes courts to make judgments on matters that are the province of those who are responsible for federal and state law enforcement agencies."
- And, finally, the Court rejects the Respondent's suggested test, which would invalidate a police-created exigency were the police "engage in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry is imminent and inevitable." The Court stresses that this "nebulous and impractical" test, with all of its "subtleties," would be "nearly impossible" for courts to administer.
Then, applying its newly-minted test with a clear vision of the factors that do not apply, the Court finds no evidence in the record of this case to suggest "that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the apartment." The simple announcements made by the police, although strict, were entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Two more factors lead the Court to uphold the actions in this case. First, contrary to respondent's contention, there was neither sufficient evidence nor findings in the record to support the conclusion that the police "demanded" entry. And, second, although the police explained that they were going to enter regardless of compliance, this explanation came only after the presumed exigency arose.
More information on Kentucky v. King can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, available here. Kentucky v. King
Oregon Appellate Court 05-12-11
by: Abassos • May 11, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Private Indecency - Jails - Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
- Endangering the Welfare of a Minor - "Permit" a Child to be Present
Oregon Supreme Court 05-05-11
by: Abassos • May 4, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Protective Sweeps - Reasonable Suspicion of Danger
The Oregon Supreme Court finds that police officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep of a house because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion that there was an immediate threat of physical injury. The Court addresses each relevant fact and finds that individually and as a whole they are too vague to support a protective sweep.
The officers went to a house to conduct a knock and talk based on information they receieved from unnamed informants that the house was a drug house and "wanted persons" were staying there. While in the house with the consent of the person who answered the door, the officers allegedly became concerned for their safety because defendant and another person walked out of the house without obeying an order to stop. They are stopped by an officer outside and are thereafter cooperative. The officers had been told by the person who answered the door that there was only one other person in the house. Such evidence does not amount to a reasonable suspicion of immediate danger:
- There was nothing in the record about the reliability or credibility of the informants.
- The fact that two people walked out of the house in a manner that "resembled" fleeing was at most suspicious, not indicative of danger.
- The fact that at least one more person was present than indicated by the person who answered the door was also not indicative of danger.
- The state's allegation that the house was "associated with" another house known as a drug house was not supported by articulable facts and, in any case, also would not indicate immediate danger.
- The state's allegation that the person who answered the door was "associated with" people who reside at a known drug house was also too vague since there was neither evidence that those other people were dangerous nor that they had ever been in the instant house.
Either alone or together such "facts" do not support a protective sweep. Thus, when the officer saw drugs in defendant's bedroom during the sweep, it did not fall under the plain view exception. And when the officer used that information during a suspicionless stop to gain consent to search from defendant, it was not a voluntary consent.
DeMuniz, Durham, Walters and Balmer in the majority. Kistler and Linder dissent. Gillette and Landau didn't participate in the decision. State v. Guggenmos
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...