Oregon Appellate Court, October 6, 2021
by: Rankin Johnson • October 11, 2021 • no comments
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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. | 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 | + | 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 n***** got murdered, and a n*****’s going to pay for it.” (Brackets added) 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
In sex-abuse trial, evidence that defendant previously abused someone else was not admissible. Reversed and remanded. | 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 | + | 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 the state's new argument. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171517 State v. Martinez] 315 Or App 48 (October 6, 2021) (Tookey) (Washington County, Sims) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171517 State v. Martinez] 315 Or App 48 (October 6, 2021) (Tookey) (Washington County, Sims) | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167735 State v. Johnson] 315 Or App 66 (October 6, 2021) (Per curiam) (Deschutes County, Bagley) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167735 State v. Johnson] 315 Or App 66 (October 6, 2021) (Per curiam) (Deschutes County, Bagley) | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2021-10-11 11:18:00 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:18, October 12, 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 n***** got murdered, and a n*****’s going to pay for it.” (Brackets added) 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 the state's new argument.
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)
