Oregon Appellate Court, June 3, 2021
by: Rankin Johnson • June 4, 2021 • no comments
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
DUII - Predicate offenses | DUII - Predicate offenses | ||
SENTENCING - PSIs | SENTENCING - PSIs | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 14: | ||
In juvenile case, investigation by Crime Victim and Survivor Services Division of DOJ supported restitution award. Affirmed. | In juvenile case, investigation by Crime Victim and Survivor Services Division of DOJ supported restitution award. Affirmed. | ||
| − | The court | + | CVSSD paid for the victim's medical care and lost wages. The trial court properly relied on that investigation to establish defendant's conduct caused the injuries. The court further held that medical payments made in accordance with the Workers Compensation fee schedules were reasonable. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171383 State v. C.A. M-D] 312 Or App 1 (June 3, 2021) (DeVore) (Multnomah County, Allen) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171383 State v. C.A. M-D] 312 Or App 1 (June 3, 2021) (DeVore) (Multnomah County, Allen) | ||
| Line 25: | Line 22: | ||
Evidence of the current list price of merchandise is sufficient to prove value. Affirmed. | Evidence of the current list price of merchandise is sufficient to prove value. Affirmed. | ||
| − | Defendant was accused of stealing more than $1000 worth of merchandise. The court explained that the property should be valued at a price at which it could have been sold, and the jury | + | Defendant was accused of stealing more than $1000 worth of merchandise. The court explained that the property should be valued at a price at which it could have been sold, and the state's evidence of the list price was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The state's evidence did not conclusively establish that none of the merchandise was discounted at the time of the theft, which was a proper jury argument but not a basis for a judgment of acquittal. |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168932 State v. Dillard] 312 Or App 27 (June 3, 2021) (Lagesen) (Curry County, Beaman) |
'''THEFT - ''Mens rea''''' | '''THEFT - ''Mens rea''''' | ||
| Line 33: | Line 30: | ||
To be guilty of theft, defendant must intend permanently to deprive the owner of the property. Reversed and remanded. | To be guilty of theft, defendant must intend permanently to deprive the owner of the property. Reversed and remanded. | ||
| − | Defendant, who was mentally ill, took money from a bank in connection with a bomb threat. He argued that he was not guilty of | + | Defendant, who was mentally ill, took money from a bank in connection with a bomb threat. He argued that he was not guilty of theft, an element of the robbery with which he was charged, because his intent was to be arrested and thereby obtain mental health services, not to keep the bank's money. The trial court disagreed and found him guilty but insane. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court, sitting as finder of fact, erred in finding that intent to permanently deprive the owner of property was not required when, as here, the defendant exercised control over the property. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A172166 State v. Sorrow] 312 Or App 40 (June 3, 2021) (Lagesen) (Coos County, Stone) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A172166 State v. Sorrow] 312 Or App 40 (June 3, 2021) (Lagesen) (Coos County, Stone) | ||
| Line 39: | Line 36: | ||
'''ASSAULT - ''Mens rea''''' | '''ASSAULT - ''Mens rea''''' | ||
| − | Evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant injured the victim, an infant, by shaking him | + | Evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knowingly injured the victim, an infant, by shaking him. Affirmed. |
| − | Defendant was the only adult who was near the victim at the time of the injury, and medical experts opined that the injury was more likely to be deliberate shaking than an accident. Accordingly, even without direct evidence of what defendant did, the finder of fact could | + | Defendant was the only adult who was near the victim at the time of the injury, and medical experts opined that the injury was more likely to be deliberate shaking than an accident. Accordingly, even without direct evidence of what defendant did, the finder of fact could infer he did it knowingly. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164153 State v. Sheikhuha] 312 Or App 57 (June 3, 2021) (DeHoog) (Multnomah County, James) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164153 State v. Sheikhuha] 312 Or App 57 (June 3, 2021) (DeHoog) (Multnomah County, James) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''DUII - Predicate offenses''' |
Washington negligent-driving offense is not predicate for lifetime ODL suspension. Reversed. | Washington negligent-driving offense is not predicate for lifetime ODL suspension. Reversed. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:04, June 5, 2021
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
RESTITUTION - Proof
In juvenile case, investigation by Crime Victim and Survivor Services Division of DOJ supported restitution award. Affirmed.
CVSSD paid for the victim's medical care and lost wages. The trial court properly relied on that investigation to establish defendant's conduct caused the injuries. The court further held that medical payments made in accordance with the Workers Compensation fee schedules were reasonable.
State v. C.A. M-D 312 Or App 1 (June 3, 2021) (DeVore) (Multnomah County, Allen)
THEFT - Valuation
Evidence of the current list price of merchandise is sufficient to prove value. Affirmed.
Defendant was accused of stealing more than $1000 worth of merchandise. The court explained that the property should be valued at a price at which it could have been sold, and the state's evidence of the list price was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The state's evidence did not conclusively establish that none of the merchandise was discounted at the time of the theft, which was a proper jury argument but not a basis for a judgment of acquittal.
State v. Dillard 312 Or App 27 (June 3, 2021) (Lagesen) (Curry County, Beaman)
THEFT - Mens rea
To be guilty of theft, defendant must intend permanently to deprive the owner of the property. Reversed and remanded.
Defendant, who was mentally ill, took money from a bank in connection with a bomb threat. He argued that he was not guilty of theft, an element of the robbery with which he was charged, because his intent was to be arrested and thereby obtain mental health services, not to keep the bank's money. The trial court disagreed and found him guilty but insane. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court, sitting as finder of fact, erred in finding that intent to permanently deprive the owner of property was not required when, as here, the defendant exercised control over the property.
State v. Sorrow 312 Or App 40 (June 3, 2021) (Lagesen) (Coos County, Stone)
ASSAULT - Mens rea
Evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knowingly injured the victim, an infant, by shaking him. Affirmed.
Defendant was the only adult who was near the victim at the time of the injury, and medical experts opined that the injury was more likely to be deliberate shaking than an accident. Accordingly, even without direct evidence of what defendant did, the finder of fact could infer he did it knowingly.
State v. Sheikhuha 312 Or App 57 (June 3, 2021) (DeHoog) (Multnomah County, James)
DUII - Predicate offenses
Washington negligent-driving offense is not predicate for lifetime ODL suspension. Reversed.
Although the Washington offense requires both bad driving and impairment from drugs or alcohol, it does not require bad driving because of drug or alcohol use, and thus is not a statutory counterpart to an Oregon DUII.
Mooney, dissenting, would have affirmed.
State v. Ramirez 312 Or App 117 (June 3, 2021) (Dehoog, Mooney dissenting, en banc) (Umatilla County, Temple)
SENTENCING - PSI
In felony sex case, sentencing court cannot impose sentence without PSI. Reversed.
State v. Phillips 312 Or App 149 (June 3, 2021) (Kamins) (Yamhill County, Wiles)
