A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Court, November 25, 2020

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews
Revision as of 10:46, November 30, 2020 by Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson • November 30, 2020 • no comments

 

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.

The court explained that counsel's oversight was not an adequate reason to deny defendant the right to testify.

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. Reversed.

State v. Drumbor/Day 307 Or App 630 (November 25, 2020) (Powers) (Multnomah County, Rees)

DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY - Trial court's discretion

Trial court abused discretion by precluding defendant from testifying about second incident following direct and cross-examination about first incident. Reversed.

The court explained that counsel's oversight was not an adequate reason to deny defendant the right to testify.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (November 25, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY - Trial court's discretion

Trial court abused discretion by precluding defendant from testifying about second incident following direct and cross-examination about first incident. Reversed.

The court explained that counsel's oversight was not an adequate reason to deny defendant the right to testify.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (November 25, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY - Trial court's discretion

Trial court abused discretion by precluding defendant from testifying about second incident following direct and cross-examination about first incident. Reversed.

The court explained that counsel's oversight was not an adequate reason to deny defendant the right to testify.

State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (November 25, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)