A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Case Reviews

From OCDLA Library of Defense
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(22 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Case Reviews}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Case Reviews}}
 +
<!-- Please don't edit the contents of this page. If there is a typo in an article, please go to the page for that article and edit it directly. The updated version of that article will show in this page. -->
 +
 +
:::::'''Go here to see a list of:'''
 +
 +
:::::'''[[2019_Case_Summaries_by_Topic|2019 Case Summaries by Topic]]''''''
 +
 +
:::::[[2018_Case_Summaries_by_Topic | '''2018 Case Summaries by Topic''']]
 +
 +
:::::[[2017_Case_Summaries_by_Topic | '''2017 Case Summaries by Topic''']]
 +
 +
:::::[[2016_Case_Summaries_by_Topic | '''2016 Case Summaries by Topic''']]
 +
 +
:::::[[2015_Case_Summaries_by_Topic | '''2015 Case Summaries by Topic''']]
 +
 +
 +
 +
___________________________________________________________________
 +
 +
==Oregon Supreme Court--February 28,2019==
 +
 +
'''EVIDENCE — Hearsay, official records, and business records.'''
 +
Records generated by police agencies are not admissible as business records but may be admissible as official records. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
 +
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7118/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Edmonds] 364 Or 410 (February 28, 2019) (Balmer) (Clackamas County, Van Dyk)
 +
 +
'''FAILURE TO APPEAR — 'Released from custody' element of offense'''
 +
A book-and-release process ordered by a judge is not 'custody,' as that term is used in the failure-to-appear statutes, and therefore the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Reversed.
 +
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7119/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. McColly] 364 Or 464 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Tillamook County, Stevens)
 +
 +
'''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause'''
 +
Post-conviction petitioner was advised of potential immigration consequences at the time of his plea, and therefore his ignorance of those consequences did not toll the statute of limitations. Affirmed.
 +
The court also noted that the record raised the issue of whether the petitioner's mental disabilities were a basis to toll the statute of limitations. But, because petitioner alleged, in a declaration attached to the petition, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known the immigration consequences, the court held that he was mentally competent to understand the significance of immigration consequences.
 +
The court further noted that the evidence of defendant's mental disabilities did not show that it prevented him from consulting with counsel or timely filing a petition.
 +
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7120/download#page=1&zoom=auto Perez-Rodriguez v. State] 364 Or 489 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson, Balmer dissenting) (Washington County, Kohl)
 +
 +
'''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause'''
 +
Post-conviction petitioner was unaware of potential immigration consequences until he was placed in deportation proceedings, by which time the post-conviction statute of limitations had expired, and therefore the statute of limitations was tolled. Reversed and remanded.
 +
The court explained that, because neither the court nor defense counsel told petitioner of the possibility of immigration consequences, a reasonable layperson in petitioner's position would have had no reason to investigate or consult with counsel. The resulting rule is similar to the civil discovery rule for tolling a statute of limitations.
 +
Balmer dissented, arguing that petitioner had all the facts necessary to his claim. Balmer would have held that the petitioner's legal ignorance did not make his failure to seek counsel reasonable.
 +
[https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/7123/download#page=1&zoom=auto Gutale v. State] 364 Or 502 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Washington County, Bailey)

Revision as of 13:50, March 12, 2019


Go here to see a list of:
2019 Case Summaries by Topic'
2018 Case Summaries by Topic
2017 Case Summaries by Topic
2016 Case Summaries by Topic
2015 Case Summaries by Topic


___________________________________________________________________

Oregon Supreme Court--February 28,2019

EVIDENCE — Hearsay, official records, and business records. Records generated by police agencies are not admissible as business records but may be admissible as official records. Reversed and remanded for new trial. State v. Edmonds 364 Or 410 (February 28, 2019) (Balmer) (Clackamas County, Van Dyk)

FAILURE TO APPEAR — 'Released from custody' element of offense A book-and-release process ordered by a judge is not 'custody,' as that term is used in the failure-to-appear statutes, and therefore the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Reversed. State v. McColly 364 Or 464 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Tillamook County, Stevens)

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause Post-conviction petitioner was advised of potential immigration consequences at the time of his plea, and therefore his ignorance of those consequences did not toll the statute of limitations. Affirmed. The court also noted that the record raised the issue of whether the petitioner's mental disabilities were a basis to toll the statute of limitations. But, because petitioner alleged, in a declaration attached to the petition, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known the immigration consequences, the court held that he was mentally competent to understand the significance of immigration consequences. The court further noted that the evidence of defendant's mental disabilities did not show that it prevented him from consulting with counsel or timely filing a petition. Perez-Rodriguez v. State 364 Or 489 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson, Balmer dissenting) (Washington County, Kohl)

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF — Statute of limitations escape clause Post-conviction petitioner was unaware of potential immigration consequences until he was placed in deportation proceedings, by which time the post-conviction statute of limitations had expired, and therefore the statute of limitations was tolled. Reversed and remanded. The court explained that, because neither the court nor defense counsel told petitioner of the possibility of immigration consequences, a reasonable layperson in petitioner's position would have had no reason to investigate or consult with counsel. The resulting rule is similar to the civil discovery rule for tolling a statute of limitations. Balmer dissented, arguing that petitioner had all the facts necessary to his claim. Balmer would have held that the petitioner's legal ignorance did not make his failure to seek counsel reasonable.

Gutale v. State 364 Or 502 (February 28, 2019) (Nelson) (Washington County, Bailey)

Oregon Appellate Court, June 9, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • June 11, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, June 3, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • June 4, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, May 26, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 28, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Supreme Court, May 20, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 28, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, May 19, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 21, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, May 12, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 14, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, May 5, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 7, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Supreme Court, May 6, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • May 6, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, April 28, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 29, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, April 21, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 22, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, April 14, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 15, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Supreme Court, April 8, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 8, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, April 7, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 8, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, March 31, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • April 1, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, March 3, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 30, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, March 24, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 30, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, March 10, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 18, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Appellate Court, March 17, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 17, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Supreme Court, March 17, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 17, 2021 • no comments

Oregon Supreme Court, March 4, 2021

by: Rankin Johnson • March 9, 2021 • no comments