This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.
|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <summary hidden>
| |
| − | RESTITUTION - Stipulations and plea agreements
| |
| − | MENS REA - Knowledge of victim's age
| |
| − | BURGLARY - Intent to commit crime in house
| |
| − | EVIDENCE - Other-bad-acts and propensity evidence
| |
| − | SELF-INCRIMINATION - Evidence of assertion of right to remain silent
| |
| − | SENTENCING - Consecutive sentences
| |
| − | DISORDERLY CONDUCT - Mental states
| |
| − | APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Mootness
| |
| − | </summary>
| |
| − | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA'''
| |
| | | | |
| − | '''RESTITUTION - Stipulations and plea agreements'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Trial court erred in implicitly finding that restitution was part of plea agreement, and in precluding defendant from objecting to restitution award. Reversed and remanded.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24167/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Nosbisch] 298 Or App 1 (June 13, 2019) (Egan) (Union County, Dretke)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''MENS REA - Knowledge of victim's age'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Evidence insufficient to prove that defendant knew the victim's age. Reversed and remanded.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defendant was only guilty of online sexual corruption if he "reasonably believed" the victim, a fifteen-year-old boy, was younger than sixteen. The victim told defendant he was an adult. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant could not have known that a fifteen-year-old was actually sixteen based on appearance.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24168/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Gale] 298 Or App 6 (June 13, 2019) (Egan) (Washington County, Butterfield)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''BURGLARY - Intent to commit crime in house'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Evidence insufficient to show that defendant intended to commit a crime when his license to be in the house was revoked. Reversed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defendant was visiting his niece, and she asked him to leave. He refused. Defendant's father-in-law came to the house, and defendant punched him. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the evidence did not show that he had the intent to commit a crime at the time he was directed to leave, or that he refused to leave in order to facilitate committing a crime.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24161/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Payton] 298 Or App 22 (June 13, 2019) (Ortega) (Jackson County, Mejia)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''EVIDENCE - Other-bad-acts and propensity evidence'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Trial failed to balance probative value of other-bad-act evidence as nonpropensity evidence and as propensity evidence. Reversed and remanded.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defendant was accused of sex offenses against his granddaughters. He offered evidence that he behaved appropriately around children. In rebuttal, the state offered the testimony of the victims' mother, defendant's daughter, that he had committed sex offenses against her. On appeal, the state argued that the evidence was admissible to show sexual purpose. In holding otherwise, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had failed to conduct on-the-record balancing.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24166/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Cave] 298 Or App 39 (June 13, 2019) (Ortega) (Deschutes County, Adler)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''SELF-INCRIMINATION - Evidence of assertion of right to remain silent'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Trial court erred by denying mistrial motion after police officer twice said that defendant said he had 'nothing to say' when questioned. Reversed and remanded.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24160/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Sprow] 298 Or App 44 (June 13, 2019) (Hadlock) (Washington County, Butterfield)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive sentences'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for sodomy and unlawful use of the firearm, when the firearm was used to compel the victim to engage in sodomy. Reversed and remanded.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24172/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Swearingen] 298 Or App 56 (June 13, 2019) (Hadlock) (Multnomah County, Skye)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''DISORDERLY CONDUCT - Mental states'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defendant was guilt of disorderly conduct if he 'recklessly' created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. Affirmed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24169/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. West] 298 Or App 125 (June 13, 2019) (Kistler) (Multnomah County, James/Marshall)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Mootness'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any error in judgment was moot because amended judgment, with same error, had not been appealed. Dismissed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/24173/download#page=1&zoom=auto State v. Nguyen] 298 Or App 139 (June 13, 2019) (Per curiam) (Curry County, Beaman)
| |
| − | {{wl-publish: 2019-06-14 22:47:31 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }}
| |
