Oregon Appellate Court, December 2, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • December 4, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension DUII - Ignition interlock device SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Conduct constituting a search RESTITUTION - Good cau...") |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167369 State v. Garibay] 307 Or App 722 (December 2, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Marion County, Prall) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167369 State v. Garibay] 307 Or App 722 (December 2, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Marion County, Prall) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - No-trespassing signs''' |
| − | + | No-trespassing sign in front of abandoned house did not prohibit entry through a latched gate in front of an adjacent house, notwithstanding that a single fence enclosed both. Reversed on state's appeal. | |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171391 State v. Faught] 307 Or App 733 (December 2, 2020) (Powers) (Lane County, Holland) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171391 State v. Faught] 307 Or App 733 (December 2, 2020) (Powers) (Lane County, Holland) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Expansion of stop''' |
| − | + | Officer's skepticism regarding defendant's consular ID, which had defendant's picture on it, was not a basis to seek consent to search defendant for evidence of identity during traffic stop. Reversed. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170733 State v. Ruiz-Espinoza] 307 Or App 743 (December 2, 2020) (Hadlock) (Lane County, Mertenk) |
'''FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension''' | '''FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension''' | ||
| − | + | When respondent was held for five judicial days without a hearing, trial court erred by holding a hearing and issuing a commitment order. Reversed. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The court explained that a series of holds, even with new case numbers as in this case, does not affect the requirement that a hearing be held before five days of confinement. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171694 State v. M.Z.] 307 Or App 755 (December 2, 2020) (Per curiam) (Benton County, Williams) |
Revision as of 11:42, December 5, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. McKerrall 307 Or App 682 (December 2, 2020) (Armstrong) (Yamhill County, Wiles)
UNLAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON - Conduct constituting offense
Shooting one person did not constitute UUW as to another person, because there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to use the firearm against the other person. Reversed.
State v. Garibay 307 Or App 722 (December 2, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Marion County, Prall)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - No-trespassing signs
No-trespassing sign in front of abandoned house did not prohibit entry through a latched gate in front of an adjacent house, notwithstanding that a single fence enclosed both. Reversed on state's appeal.
State v. Faught 307 Or App 733 (December 2, 2020) (Powers) (Lane County, Holland)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Expansion of stop
Officer's skepticism regarding defendant's consular ID, which had defendant's picture on it, was not a basis to seek consent to search defendant for evidence of identity during traffic stop. Reversed.
State v. Ruiz-Espinoza 307 Or App 743 (December 2, 2020) (Hadlock) (Lane County, Mertenk)
FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension
When respondent was held for five judicial days without a hearing, trial court erred by holding a hearing and issuing a commitment order. Reversed.
The court explained that a series of holds, even with new case numbers as in this case, does not affect the requirement that a hearing be held before five days of confinement.
State v. M.Z. 307 Or App 755 (December 2, 2020) (Per curiam) (Benton County, Williams)
