Oregon Supreme Court November 8, 2012

by: Stephanie Clark and Abassos • November 8, 2012 • no comments

Standard for Criminal Negligence

A criminally negligent state of mind does not require "seriously blameworthy" conduct or that a defendant's conduct shows an "indifference to consequences"; it requires only that the risk of a particular result from defendant's conduct be "substantial and unjustifiable" and that failure to be aware of said risk is a "gross deviation" from a reasonable standard of care. Whether conduct exhibits a criminally negligent state of mind is heavily fact-dependent. Here, defendant was guilty of criminally negligent homicide in a vehicle collision where facts showed he was more than "merely inattentive": he was driving in a known "safety corridor" under hazardous conditions, he was a professional driver who should have been aware of these conditions, several witnesses observed him driving unsafely prior to the collision, and the collision was avoidable.

The Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed State v Betts (384 P2d 198, 1963) in noting that evidence of prior conduct logically permits an inference of an ongoing state of mind.

State v Lewis, ___Or___ (2012)

Motion for reconsideration allows minor change in previous ruling for purposes of habeas corpus

Upon petition for reconsideration, the Oregon Supreme Court modified its ruling in State v.Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) to make clear that defendant raised two arguments on his petition for review, although they were not later briefed on the merits, for purposes of subsequent habeas relief. Otherwise the opinion is undisturbed. State v Leistiko ___Or___ (2012)