Oregon Appellate Court, December 2, 2020

by: Rankin Johnson • December 4, 2020 • no comments

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)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. Faught 307 Or App 733 (December 2, 2020) (Powers) (Lane County, Holland)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension

Unobserved theft from petitioner's truck, and random encounter with respondent in a parking lot, did not cause petitioner to experience reasonable apprehension of former romantic partner. Reversed.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 2, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)