Oregon Appellate Ct - Mar. 26, 2014
by: Abassos and Megha Desai • March 27, 2014 • no comments
There were 16 criminal and juvenile appellate decisions released this week. I'm still working on the summaries, but here are the drafts of the ones I've done so far.
DMV Suspension Hearing - Setover - Jury Duty is Not an Official Duty Conflict
For the purpose of setting over a DMV suspension hearing, an officer has an official duty conflict when the officer is required be in another place to conduct business as a police officer. Here, the officer had jury duty. Because jury duty was not an obligation of the officer's position as a police officer, it does not justify extending a DMV hearing. Since the process for suspending petitioner's license was faulty, the suspension must be set aside. Johnson v DMV, 261 Or App (2014)
Merger – Sufficient Pause – Assault III (aided by another) and Misdemeanor Assault IV
There was a sufficient pause between assaults, justifying a denial of merger, where defendant punched the victim-bouncer in the face, was wrestled to the ground and then, with the help of a friend, escaped and hit the victim with a chair. It was relevant here that the trial judge made a specific finding that defendant could have and should have backed down at the point where he was down on the ground, and instead chose to re-enter the fray. State v King, 261 Or App (2014).
ECSA - Nudity Alone May Be a Lewd Exhibition
Mere nudity alone is sufficient to constitute a "lewd exhibition" for encouraging child sex abuse if it would produce lust or sexual desire in the person charged. That is, whether a picture is lewd is from the perspective of the person charged, not an objective viewer. Here, there was more than sufficient evidence from the testimony of the child that the child posing nude for the photos produced sexual desire in the defendant. Thus, there was sufficient evidence that it was a lewd exhibition.
Also, there was sufficient evidence to support the state's theory that defendant induced (i.e. persuaded) a small child to let him take partially nude pictures of her where the particular pose in the pictures, the child's facial expression and mother's testimony regarding defendant always being clothed all suggested that the pictures would not have occurred without persuasion or inducement. State v Smith, 261 Or App (2014).
Disproportionality - Remand for Re-Sentencing to Consider Buck/Rodriguez
Where the trial court in a pre-Buck/Rodriguez Measure 11 sentencing expressed a belief that the Measure 11 sentence was unconstitutionally disproprotionate but that he "had no choice", the appropriate appellate remedy is to remand for the trial court to resentence defendant with the benefit of the Supreme Court decision. The defense attorney also made an argument for the record while simultaneously expressing a belief that there was nothing the court could actually do, aside from imposing the Measure 11 sentence. State v Rivera, 261 Or App (2014).
Severance of Joined Charges - Substantial Prejudice - "Sufficiently Simple and Distinct"
Once charges are appropriately joined, they may only be severed upon a showing of substantial prejudice. Substantial prejudice does not exist if "the evidence supporting the various charges 'would be mutually admissible in separate trials or is sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder.'" Here, there was no temporal or evidentiary overlap between the person crimes and drug crimes such that a jury would have difficulty assessing guilt on each set of charges separately. Thus, substantial prejudice was not established. Note that for reasons that aren't entirely clear, the better argument was not raised on appeal as reversible error: "the drug crimes and person crimes should not have been charged in a single indictment because they did not satisfy the requirements for joinder under ORS 132.560(1), in that they were not "of the same or similar character," "part of the same act or transaction," or "parts of a common scheme or plan." Only if cases are properly joined should a court consider severance. Citation. State v Roelle, 261 Or App (2014).
Warrantless Seizure - Exigent Circumstances - Imminent Destruction of Computer Evidence
A detective had a reasonable belief that evidence was about to be destroyed where:
- The detective had probable cause to believe that defendant had child pornography on his computer
- Defendant had given his computer to someone with instructions to delete everything, including back-up files
- That person had previously assisted in deleting child pornography from computers
- When the detective went to the person's house, he saw defendant's hard drive hooked up to a computer with some work that had already been done.
Thus, the court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress. State v JCL
Resisting Arrest - Self-Defense Jury Instructions Must Refer to Defendant's State of Mind, Not the Officer's
In a resisting arrest case, any statement instructing the jury to consider the state of mind of the arresting officer is a clear reversible error. Specifically, the jury cannot be expressly instructed to consider whether the officer reasonably believed force was lawful because self-defense relies only on whether defendant reasonably believed force was necessary. See State v. Oliphant, 347 Or. 175 (2009). Here, the jury instructions *** State v. Poitra, 261 Or. App. ___ (2014)
Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds must be made Prior to Trial
Defendant must raise the issue of double jeopardy in a pretrial motion to dismiss, which the trial court decides as a matter of law. Here, the court declined to discuss the merits of defendant’s double jeopardy argument because it was raised at the conclusion of the second trial (after remand). State v. Berry, 261 Or. App. ___ (2014)
The Denial of a Day-of-Trial Continuance Request is Unlikely to be an Abuse of Discretion
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a day-of-trial request for continuance where there were opportunities prior to trial to make the request. Here, defense counsel had the case for two months but told the court on the day of trial that because the defendant had been held in an out-of-county jail, he had just determined the existence of a potential mental health defense for which he needed to consult an expert. In rejecting the defense argument, the court quotes a prior case chastising a defense attorney for an "abuse of the system" because he waited until the afternoon before trial to request a continuance. In this case, the court finds that there were various opportunities prior to trial to meet with the client and to request a continuance. State v. Licari, 261 Or. App. ___ (2014)
Interfering With a Peace Officer - A Lawful Order is One that is Legally Justified, Not One Made While the Officer is Lawfully Present
Denial of a Motion for Continuance - Defense Forced to Trial Without Completing Forensic Testing
Where the defense was denied time to complete forensic testing prior to trial, any error is harmless unless it is shown that the testing would have made a difference. Here, the defense in a sex case was only able to acquire clothing for DNA testing a few days before trial, because of DA objections and court demands (resulting in a successfuly mandamus, etc). The judge proceeded to trial on the case but repeatedly told the defense that if the testing turned up anything at all that justified a continuance that he would grant either said whatever time was needed. As far as the record shows, nothing ever turned up. Ergo, according to the court, any error in denying the continuance was harmless. State v Lobo
