Antoine Demurrers and Election
by: Ryan Scott • September 9, 2024 • no comments
There are a number of cases currently at the Court of Appeals where one of the claims is the denial of an Antoine demurrer/motion to elect. For some, no demurrer was filed at the trial level and it's just the denial of a motion to elect. In theory, we could end up getting a decision any week, though I think this issue is of such importance, and applicable to so many cases, that the COA will be very careful with the first one they issue.
I’m writing this post because I want to highlight the arguments the AG’s office is making at the COA and a couple of things you can do at the trial level to give your appellate attorney the ammunition for the best possible response.
First, one argument the AG’s office is making is that there really is no legal basis for ever compelling the state to elect before they’ve rested and maybe not even then. There argument is that in the most notable cases from the past few years (Payne, Antoine direct, Antoine PCR, Justice Duncan’s concurrence), the language regarding elections are just dicta and not binding on trial courts. It’s partially true that, in a couple of those opinions, the state's failure to elect was discussed in detail but not actually necessary to the final outcome. (I would note that the authors of the Payne opinion and the OSC Antoine concurrence are both current justices, so the AG’s argument faces a serious headwind when one of these cases get to the OSC.) However, it’s not true in the direct appeal in Antoine, where the COA held that the defendant must also argue a motion to elect if he has argued an Antoine demurrer. (I’m simplifying a bit.) The defendant's failure to file a motion to elect was fatal to the appeal and therefore self-evidently essential to the final outcome. Consequently, the AG’s office has backed down slightly, arguing that a standalone motion to elect doesn’t really exist in Oregon law. It only exists as an alternative to a definite and certain demurrer.
I strongly suspect the state will lose that argument, but you can moot it out if you always file an Antoine demurrer along with your motion to elect.
Second, the state will argue that if you want to prevail on a motion to elect before trial, you must explain the harm that will arise if the state does not elect. Of course, the harm may not be obvious until the state elects, but, still, if you can identify some harm, why not do so?
Let’s take a sex case involving thirty allegations but only ten counts. There is enough factual distinction (location, age, etc.) between the allegations that the state could elect if forced. But, as the state says, your defense is all or nothing. You aren’t admitting any of them happened. So what difference does an election make?
I would say this. In cross-examination, you aren’t going to challenge every single allegation. After all, you don’t want the complaining witness to have an opportunity to repeat every allegation. You want to target a specific sample of counts to undermine their credibility. In that situation, you will want to target those allegations – if you know them – that line up with certain counts. Instead, the state wants to play whac-a-mole. You have a good argument that one incident couldn’t have happened the way the witness says, they’ll just switch out that allegation in their final election. This is a serious fairness and due process problem. Before trial, the state would have said X is the allegation described in count five. You show X almost certainly didn’t happen so halfway through trial, the state decides that count 5 is now Y.
It's also a GJ problem. There is a rebuttable presumption that when the state elects, it mirrors what the GJ found. When the state elects halfway through trial, it’s highly unlikely that’s true.
