A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Court, October 6, 2021

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson • October 11, 2021 • no comments

(Created page with " <summary hidden> DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - ''Boyd'' deliveries EVIDENCE - Facts outside the record SEARCH AND SEIZURE - U-turns DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS - Threats an...")
 
Line 10: Line 10:
 
'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA'''
 
'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA'''
  
'''EVIDENCE - Facts outside the record'''<br>Importance: 4/5
+
'''INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - Prejudice'''<br>Importance: 3/5
  
Prosecutor's argument that stains on defendant's gloves looked like blood, but confirmatory DNA testing would take too long to produce evidence for trial, was improper reference to facts outside the record. Reversed.
+
Petitioner, a Black man, was prejudiced by counsel's failure to interview a neighbor who saw a white man go into the murder victim's house and flee after a struggle. Reversed.
  
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals reconsidered its earlier decision that the error was harmless. In concluding that the evidence was harmful, the Court of Appeals explained that the prosecutor's excuse for not obtaining DNA evidence undercut the defendant's permissible argument that the failure to obtain evidence could be held against the state. The instruction not to consider evidence outside the record exacerbated the harm by further weakening the defense argument.
+
The neighbor said that she tried to tell police on the night of the murder, but was ignored, and when she tried to tell a detective about it later, the detective  said, “A  nigger  got  murdered,  and  a  nigger’s  going to pay for it.” Her testimony, providing an alternative suspect, would have given the jury a reason to acquit and also have affected trial counsel's tactical choices.
  
The court declined to reconsider its ruling on the witness-false-in-part instruction, because it might not arise on remand.
+
In the state's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's that spending six hours canvassing neighbors was inadequate, in light of evidence that the post-conviction investigator located her without trouble.
  
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A165966 State v. Camirand] 314 Or App 791 (September 29, 2021) (Lagesen) (Lincoln County, Branford)
+
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A159635 Johnson v. Premo] 315 Or App 1 (October 6, 2021) (Armstrong) (Marion County, Reynolds)
 +
 
 +
'''EVIDENCE - Other bad acts'''<br>Importance: 2/5
 +
 
 +
In sex-abuse trial, evidence that defendant previously abused someone else was not admissible. Reversed and remanded.
 +
 
 +
On appeal, the state argued that the evidence was admissible propensity evidence under OEC 404(4), but the trial court had admitted the evidence as nonpropensity evidence under OEC 403(4). The trial court on remand could consider whether the evidence was admissible under a different theory.
 +
 
 +
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171517 State v. Martinez] 315 Or App 48 (October 6, 2021) (Tookey) (Washington County, Sims)
 +
 
 +
'''APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Right for the wrong reason'''<br>Importance: 1/5
 +
 
 +
State did not persuade court to exercise its discretion to affirm judgment as right for the wrong reason. Reversed.
 +
 
 +
The state conceded that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded that the police investigation would have developed the same way lacking the unlawful search, and defendant was deprived of the opportunity to test the state's position.
 +
 
 +
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170343 State v. Jones] 315 Or App 60 (October 6, 2021) (DeHoog) (Clackamas County, Herndon)
 +
 
 +
'''APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Right for the wrong reason'''<br>Importance: 2/5
 +
 
 +
Motion in limine was not sufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection, because defendant did not renew and develop objection when the underlying evidence was developed. Affirmed.
 +
 
 +
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167735 State v. Johnson] 315 Or App 66 (October 6, 2021) (Per curiam) (Deschutes County, Bagley)

Revision as of 22:25, October 9, 2021

 

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - Prejudice
Importance: 3/5

Petitioner, a Black man, was prejudiced by counsel's failure to interview a neighbor who saw a white man go into the murder victim's house and flee after a struggle. Reversed.

The neighbor said that she tried to tell police on the night of the murder, but was ignored, and when she tried to tell a detective about it later, the detective said, “A nigger got murdered, and a nigger’s going to pay for it.” Her testimony, providing an alternative suspect, would have given the jury a reason to acquit and also have affected trial counsel's tactical choices.

In the state's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's that spending six hours canvassing neighbors was inadequate, in light of evidence that the post-conviction investigator located her without trouble.

Johnson v. Premo 315 Or App 1 (October 6, 2021) (Armstrong) (Marion County, Reynolds)

EVIDENCE - Other bad acts
Importance: 2/5

In sex-abuse trial, evidence that defendant previously abused someone else was not admissible. Reversed and remanded.

On appeal, the state argued that the evidence was admissible propensity evidence under OEC 404(4), but the trial court had admitted the evidence as nonpropensity evidence under OEC 403(4). The trial court on remand could consider whether the evidence was admissible under a different theory.

State v. Martinez 315 Or App 48 (October 6, 2021) (Tookey) (Washington County, Sims)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Right for the wrong reason
Importance: 1/5

State did not persuade court to exercise its discretion to affirm judgment as right for the wrong reason. Reversed.

The state conceded that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded that the police investigation would have developed the same way lacking the unlawful search, and defendant was deprived of the opportunity to test the state's position.

State v. Jones 315 Or App 60 (October 6, 2021) (DeHoog) (Clackamas County, Herndon)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Right for the wrong reason
Importance: 2/5

Motion in limine was not sufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection, because defendant did not renew and develop objection when the underlying evidence was developed. Affirmed.

State v. Johnson 315 Or App 66 (October 6, 2021) (Per curiam) (Deschutes County, Bagley)