Oregon Appellate Court, November 25, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • November 30, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY - Trial court's discretion ARSON - Sufficiency TRIAL PROCEDURE - Closing argument </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | FAPA AND STALKING ORDERS - Reasonable apprehension | |
| − | + | DUII - Ignition interlock device | |
| − | + | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Conduct constituting a search | |
| + | RESTITUTION - Good cause for untimely hearing | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171214 M.W.V.H. v. Van Hoff] 307 Or App 620 (November 25, 2020) (Shorr) (Benton County, Barlow) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171214 M.W.V.H. v. Van Hoff] 307 Or App 620 (November 25, 2020) (Shorr) (Benton County, Barlow) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
'''DUII - Ignition interlock device''' | '''DUII - Ignition interlock device''' | ||
| − | State's appeal. Regardless of whether defendant drove during the diversion period, an IID must be installed for 90 days without a negative report in order to have the IID requirement removed. Reversed. | + | State's appeal. Regardless of whether defendant drove during the diversion period, an IID must be installed for 90 days without a negative report in order to have the IID requirement removed following completion of diversion. Reversed. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A165654 State v. Drumbor/Day] 307 Or App 630 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Rees) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A165654 State v. Drumbor/Day] 307 Or App 630 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Rees) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Conduct constituting a search''' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Directing defendant to open his front door constituted a search. Reversed. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A166427 State v. Dorado] 307 Or App 641 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Washington County, Fun) |
| − | ''' | + | '''RESTITUTION - Good cause for untimely hearing''' |
| − | + | Where prosecutor requested hearing within 90 days of judgment, court did not err in failing to set hearing within 90 days. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | Because the failure to set a hearing within 90 days was the fault of the court, not the prosecutor, good cause existed to schedule a late hearing. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168802 State v. Moore] 307 Or App 649 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Ramras) |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2020-11-30 11:30:49 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:30, December 1, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
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.
M.W.V.H. v. Van Hoff 307 Or App 620 (November 25, 2020) (Shorr) (Benton County, Barlow)
DUII - Ignition interlock device
State's appeal. Regardless of whether defendant drove during the diversion period, an IID must be installed for 90 days without a negative report in order to have the IID requirement removed following completion of diversion. Reversed.
State v. Drumbor/Day 307 Or App 630 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Rees)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Conduct constituting a search
Directing defendant to open his front door constituted a search. Reversed.
State v. Dorado 307 Or App 641 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Washington County, Fun)
RESTITUTION - Good cause for untimely hearing
Where prosecutor requested hearing within 90 days of judgment, court did not err in failing to set hearing within 90 days. Affirmed.
Because the failure to set a hearing within 90 days was the fault of the court, not the prosecutor, good cause existed to schedule a late hearing.
State v. Moore 307 Or App 649 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Ramras)
