Oregon Supreme Court, September 12, 2013
by: Alex Flood and Abassos • September 12, 2013 • no comments
A Prosecutor's Charging Decision Is Constitutional So Long As It Has a Rational Basis
A prosecutor's charging decision does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution so long as there is a rational basis underlying the decision. Here, a prosecutor aggregated “numerous theft transactions” over 16 months into 16 theft charges. The basis for the decision was that organizing the charges “month-to-month” would provide clarity to the jury. In holding that the prosecutor’s use of discretion did not violate Article I, section 20, the court overrules State v. Freeland, 295 Or 367, 375 (1983) (requiring prosecutors to act pursuant to a coherent, systemic policy.) State v. Savastano, 354 Or ___ (2013)
Sentence Enhancement Facts Do Not Need to be Plead in the Indictment
Neither Article VII, section 5 nor Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution is violated when sentence enhancement facts aren't presented to the grand jury or pled in the indictment. Article VII, section 5 requires only that a grand jury find probable cause of the statutorily designated elements of a crime. For the purposes of sentence enhancement, Article I, section 11 only requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of charges. It does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Here, the Court upholds a dangerous offender enhanced sentence even though the grand jury was not presented with any facts that would support the increased punishment. State v. Reinke, 354 Or ___ (2013)
