Oregon Supreme Court 02-04-10

by: Abassos • February 3, 2010 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

• Parole Board May Impose Sex Offender Conditions If Risk of Future Sex Offenses

Two collaterally criminal cases from the Supremes this week: a parole case and a proposed ballot measure.

The particulars of the initiative case have to do with wording of the title and summary. That doesn't matter so much as the substance of the certified initiative: it would modify the sentencing guidelines to make them "advisory only". A departure up or down could be accomplished without a substantial or compelling reason. Berman v. Kroger

The parole board is allowed to impose sex offender conditions on an offender who is not on parole for a sex offense. Even if the offender has never been convicted of a sex offense. For example, Mr. Weems was not on parole for a sex crime and did not have any sex convictions. But he had an arrest for Sodomy where the charges were dismissed and a Sex Abuse case that was pled to Menacing. The board need only find that there is a risk of future sex offenses to impose the sex offender conditions. Here, there was adequate evidence of such a risk based on the arrest record. This was the same finding the Appellate Court made - so the law hasn't changed. But now the S.Ct. has issued the final word on the matter. Weems v. Board of Parole