|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <summary hidden> | | <summary hidden> |
| + | EVIDENCE - Domestic-violence hearsay exception |
| + | APPEAL AND REVIEW - Plain error |
| + | SENTENCING - Departure based on unadjudicated conduct |
| SENTENCING - Restitution | | SENTENCING - Restitution |
− | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Voluntariness
| + | TRIAL PROCEDURE - Mistrial |
− | ASSAULT - Substantial pain
| + | |
− | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Stop and arrest
| + | |
| </summary> | | </summary> |
| | | |
| '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5 | + | '''EVIDENCE - Domestic-violence hearsay exception'''<br>Importance: 3/5 |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | Hearsay statements by the victim that defendant was controlling, became aggressive when drunk, and refused to go to counseling did not explain events within the 24-hour window required for the domestic-violence hearsay exception. Reversed. |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5 | + | The court remanded a harassment conviction for new trial. It reversed a conviction for assault, because the victim's statement that defendant slapped her, causing a 'stingy shock' and pain of "2 out of 10" was not sufficient to prove a physical injury. |
| | | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171263) State v. Curiel] 316 Or App 215 (December 8, 2021) (Lagesen) (Lane County, Cascagnette) |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | '''APPEAL AND REVIEW - Plain error'''<br>Importance: 1/5 |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | Court declined to review plain error in ordering payment of court-appointed attorney's fees, because defendant did not ask it to do so. Affirmed. |
| | | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163483 State v. Laune] 316 Or App 225 (December 8, 2021) (Dehoog) (Lincoln County, Bachart) |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | '''SENTENCING - Departure based on unadjudicated conduct'''<br>Importance: 2/5 |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5
| + | Trial court did not err in finding persistent involvement based on one conviction and one unadjudicated incident that did not lead to a conviction. Affirmed. |
| | | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | Although caselaw is inconsistent about whether persistent involvement can be based on unadjudicated conduct, defendant failed to engage with the most recent opinion, which was contrary to his position. |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168781 State v. Summerlyn] 316 Or App 230 (December 8, 2021) (DeHoog) (Lane County, Rasmussen) |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5 | + | '''SENTENCING - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 2/5 |
| | | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | When defendant stole the victim's cell phone, preventing him from working for Lyft and causing him to incur fees to Lyft, defendant could be required to pay the fees in restitution. Affirmed. |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A172781 State v. Venable] 316 Or App 235 (December 8, 2021) (James) (Multnomah County, Roberts) |
| | | |
− | '''XXX - Restitution'''<br>Importance: 3/5 | + | '''TRIAL PROCEDURE - Mistrial'''<br>Importance: 3/5 |
| | | |
− | After defendant was convicted of criminal-mischief for kicking the victim's car, sentencing court did not err in finding that defendant dented the car and imposing restitution accordingly. Affirmed.
| + | Trial court should have granted mistrial following repeated references to defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent. Reversed. |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX] 316 Or App XXX (December 8, 2021) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171378 State v. Hylton] 316 Or App 270 (December 8, 2021) (Per curiam) (Lincoln County, Branford) |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2021-12-10 15:08:34 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} |
Hearsay statements by the victim that defendant was controlling, became aggressive when drunk, and refused to go to counseling did not explain events within the 24-hour window required for the domestic-violence hearsay exception. Reversed.
The court remanded a harassment conviction for new trial. It reversed a conviction for assault, because the victim's statement that defendant slapped her, causing a 'stingy shock' and pain of "2 out of 10" was not sufficient to prove a physical injury.
Court declined to review plain error in ordering payment of court-appointed attorney's fees, because defendant did not ask it to do so. Affirmed.
Trial court did not err in finding persistent involvement based on one conviction and one unadjudicated incident that did not lead to a conviction. Affirmed.
Although caselaw is inconsistent about whether persistent involvement can be based on unadjudicated conduct, defendant failed to engage with the most recent opinion, which was contrary to his position.
When defendant stole the victim's cell phone, preventing him from working for Lyft and causing him to incur fees to Lyft, defendant could be required to pay the fees in restitution. Affirmed.
Trial court should have granted mistrial following repeated references to defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent. Reversed.