Oregon Appellate Court, May 28, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • June 3, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Ineffective assistance of counsel </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''EVIDENCE - Authentication''' Screensh...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | EVIDENCE - Authentication | |
| + | SENTENCING - Financial obligations | ||
| + | EVIDENCE - Opening the door and curative admissibility | ||
| + | SENTENCING - Restitution | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164491 State v. H.D.E.] 304 Or App 375 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Umatilla County, Hill) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164491 State v. H.D.E.] 304 Or App 375 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Umatilla County, Hill) | ||
| − | ''SENTENCING - Financial obligations''' | + | '''SENTENCING - Financial obligations''' |
Trial court erred by imposing financial obligations in written judgment that had not been ordered in open court. Reversed and remanded. | Trial court erred by imposing financial obligations in written judgment that had not been ordered in open court. Reversed and remanded. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 25: | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167797 State v. Frick] 304 Or App 391 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Sims) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167797 State v. Frick] 304 Or App 391 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Sims) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''EVIDENCE - Opening the door and curative admissibility''' |
| − | + | Hearsay statements by victim about injury were not rendered admissible when defense counsel cross-examined about lack of evidence of injury. Reversed and remanded. | |
| − | + | In DV case, the uncooperative victim testified under subpoena and gave evasive answers. The responding officer also testified. Defense counsel asked the officer about evidence of injury that, had it existed, would have been reflected in a police report. On redirect, the prosecutor elicited evidence of the victim's contemporaneous statements about her injuries, arguing that defense counsel had 'opened the door.' The court also noted that the phrase 'opened the door' did not unambiguously refer to the doctrine of curative admissibility. | |
| − | + | The court noted that, because defendant was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor, the Sixth Amendment did not require a nonunanimous verdict. | |
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164536 State v. Gutierrez] 304 Or App 431 (May 28, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Washington County, Sims) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | |
| − | ''' | + | '''SENTENCING - Restitution''' |
| − | + | Defendant could be ordered to pay restitution for 200 alpacas, even though he was only convicted of crimes as to 17, because jury found upward departure factor that 40 or more animals were involved. Affirmed. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A166768 State v. Silver] 304 Or App 444 (May 28, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Polk County, Hill) |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2020-06-03 10:15:49 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:29, June 4, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
EVIDENCE - Authentication
Screenshot from phone, displaying GPS data, was authenticated by phone owner's testimony that the screenshot accurately reflected her location. Affirmed.
The court observed that the increased prevalence of digital evidence raises challenging evidentiary questions, and described the issue in this case as narrow.
State v. H.D.E. 304 Or App 375 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Umatilla County, Hill)
SENTENCING - Financial obligations
Trial court erred by imposing financial obligations in written judgment that had not been ordered in open court. Reversed and remanded.
The court did not address defendant's complaints about probation conditions, because they could be addressed at resentencing.
State v. Frick 304 Or App 391 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Sims)
EVIDENCE - Opening the door and curative admissibility
Hearsay statements by victim about injury were not rendered admissible when defense counsel cross-examined about lack of evidence of injury. Reversed and remanded.
In DV case, the uncooperative victim testified under subpoena and gave evasive answers. The responding officer also testified. Defense counsel asked the officer about evidence of injury that, had it existed, would have been reflected in a police report. On redirect, the prosecutor elicited evidence of the victim's contemporaneous statements about her injuries, arguing that defense counsel had 'opened the door.' The court also noted that the phrase 'opened the door' did not unambiguously refer to the doctrine of curative admissibility.
The court noted that, because defendant was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor, the Sixth Amendment did not require a nonunanimous verdict.
State v. Gutierrez 304 Or App 431 (May 28, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Washington County, Sims)
SENTENCING - Restitution
Defendant could be ordered to pay restitution for 200 alpacas, even though he was only convicted of crimes as to 17, because jury found upward departure factor that 40 or more animals were involved. Affirmed.
State v. Silver 304 Or App 444 (May 28, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Polk County, Hill)
