OCDLA Library of Defense - Latest Case Reviews
Blog
Solving the Gordian Knot of Attempted Murder EEDby: Ryan Scott • December 23, 2025 • no comments A jury finding of extreme emotion disturbance can reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter conviction. And it recently got harder for the state to defeat. Richards v Brown, 345 Or App 321 (2025). It's a substantial reduction, from a life-25 sentence to 10 years. But a perennial complaint of defense lawyers is that EED -- though understood as a partial defense to murder -- is not a defense in any way to attempted murder. Seems unfair, but that's the law. Is there anything a defense lawyer can do? Yes. Article I, section 16. There are legal and societal reasons why EED is a substantial mitigating factor. Consequently, EED almost certainly meets Gonzalez standard for application of Article I, section 16. State v. Gonzalez, 373 Or 248 (2025). A successful proportionality argument would still result in prison, but a non-Measure 11 sentence. State v. Fudge, 333 Or App 149 (2024). I have developed a strong interest in expanding the scope of Article I, section 16. For those keeping score at home, here are other times I think you should consider pushing the envelope: (1) When the defendant is highly mentally ill but not quite enough to meet a GEI standard. (2) When the defendant has significant medical needs. (Compassionate release only applies to non-M11 sentences in Oregon.) (3) When a lengthy sentence will only be imposed after the defendant is found rehabilitated by the parole board. (4) When a defendant is convicted of sex abuse II based solely on the victim being 16 or 17, when there is a statute that makes the exact same crime a misdemeanor. Why "First Time-Second Time" Elections Are Insufficientby: Ryan Scott • December 19, 2025 • no comments Assume defendant is charged with twenty crimes over the same five year period in the exact same location. Assume also that the crime happened on a weekly basis. Assume also that you cannot tell from the discovery or indictment the specific incidents that are the basis for crimes 1-20. Because you keep up on the law, you file a demurrer/motion to require election. The state responds by electing in part as follow. Count 2 is the first time a specific crime occurred. Count 3 is the second time that same crime occurred. Is that enough to save the state? Here's an argument taken from an appellate brief why it is not.
The Inherent Flaw in the State's Antoine Demurrer Argumentby: Ryan Scott • October 10, 2025 • no comments On September 10, 2025, the Court of Appeals issued State v. Bravo-Chavez, 343 Or App 326 (2025). The issue in that case was whether the trial court abused its discretion in requiring the state to elect the specific acts upon which it would rely when notice was inadequate. Although the standard of review was an abuse of discretion, the court appeared to hold that a remedy was required.
Bravo-Chavez, 343 Or App at 339. [Bold added.] I have long thought of the issue as one of constitutional magnitude. Specifically, "A criminal defendant is entitled “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[.]” US Const, Amend VI. See also Or Const, Art I, § 11 (providing that a criminal defendant has the right to “demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him”) But it is also statutory. ORS 132.550(7) (providing that an indictment must include “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language * * * in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended”). Moreover, the vehicle to address a statutory violation is a demurrer.
The constitutional remedy is the same: a demurrer arguing that the indictment is not definite and certain. A "definite and certain" demurrer is the odd man out in the world of demurrers. It appears that in addition to filing the demurrer, the defendant must put in all the discovery when filing the demurrer (or the equivalent) to show that the discovery itself does not provide the missing definiteness and certainty to the allegations. But once the defendant has demonstrated that the discovery does not cure the defect, the four corners of the indictment represent the scope of what the court can consider when deciding the demurrer. And then, State v Antoine says that an alternative remedy is to make the prosecutor elect pre-trial, which would theoretically cure the lack of definiteness/certainty. However, not all elections are sufficient, and the minimal election in Bravo-Chavez did not accomplish that, and most of the charges were dismissed. The State of Oregon has taken the position that a pre-trial election is not a proper remedy, up to and including the state's petition for review at the Supreme Court. And frankly I think they're spitting into the wind on that issue. But let's assume they are correct. The state wants to argue that it should not be forced to elect when it cannot reasonably do so. And it wants to argue the courts should not grant the demurrer if the state cannot reasonably elect. But here's the problem. The court should not be allowed to consider that argument/excuse when deciding the demurrer. The facts of the case are only considered to the extent they do or do not make the allegations definite and certain. The constellation of facts that purportedly show that the state cannot meet its statutory or constitutional requirements cannot be considered when evaluating a demurrer. They could in theory be properly considered when evaluating the merits of a pre-trial election, but the state insists that a pre-trial election is not a permissible vehicle for addressing the problem. So, in sum, I recommend a demurrer first, and an election in the alternative. Make clear the demurrer is under both the statute and the state and federal constitutions. And lastly, point out to the trial judge that the state's complaints of being unable to make the allegations more definite and certain -- to the extent it relies on facts outside the indictment -- is not a proper consideration when deciding the demurrer. Next 20 Articles Case Reviews
Oregon Court of Appeals, December 10th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson DUII - Diversion SEX CRIMES - Sufficiency ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS - Demurrers TRIAL PROCEEDINGS - Written findings PROBATION - Terms Oregon Court of Appeals, December 3rd, 2025by: Rankin Johnson MENS REA - Mental states and specific elements MENS REA - Mental states and specific elements RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL - Probation violations Oregon Court of Appeals, November 26th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson RIGHT TO COUNSEL - Substitute counsel SENTENCING - Proportionality EVIDENCE - Relevance Oregon Supreme Court, November 25th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson EVIDENCE - Best Evidence rule PROBATION CONDITIONS - Weapons Oregon Court of Appeals, November 25th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson EVIDENCE - Vouching MENS REA - Mental states and specific elements _________________________ |
RECENT LOD UPDATES________________________________________________ |
