Oregon Appellate Court, September 22, 2021
by: Rankin Johnson • September 23, 2021 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> EVIDENCE - Reputation for truthfulness CONTEMPT - Willfulness POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Statute-of-limitations escape clause JOINDER, SEVERANCE, AND ELECTION ...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | SENTENCING - Special probation conditions | |
| − | + | EXPUNCTION - Findings of fact | |
| − | + | JUVENILE DELINQUENCY - Sex-offender reporting | |
| − | + | POSSESSION - Constructive possession | |
| − | + | COERCION - Sufficiency | |
| − | + | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Scope of traffic stop | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
'''SENTENCING - Special probation conditions''' | '''SENTENCING - Special probation conditions''' | ||
| − | Special probation conditions were invalid because they were not imposed in open court. Reversed. | + | Special probation conditions were invalid because they were not imposed in open court. Reversed and remanded. |
The court also held that a probation condition forbidding 'intimate' relationships was unenforceably vague, and a condition forbidding alcohol use was not supported by the record. Finally, the court reversed convictions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts. | The court also held that a probation condition forbidding 'intimate' relationships was unenforceably vague, and a condition forbidding alcohol use was not supported by the record. Finally, the court reversed convictions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
Trial court could properly review underlying record to determine if criminal mistreatment conviction was an unexpungeable child abuse conviction. Affirmed. | Trial court could properly review underlying record to determine if criminal mistreatment conviction was an unexpungeable child abuse conviction. Affirmed. | ||
| − | The court also observed that the defendant, as movant, bore the burden of proof | + | The court also observed that the defendant, as movant, bore the burden of proof, but the indictment, plea petition, and judgment were collectively insufficient to carry it. Defendant declined the trial court's offer to provide more information. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A172225 State v. Sylva] 314 Or App 661 (September 22, 2021) (Tookey) (Marion County, Klapstein) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A172225 State v. Sylva] 314 Or App 661 (September 22, 2021) (Tookey) (Marion County, Klapstein) | ||
| − | '''DELINQUENCY - Sex-offender reporting''' | + | '''JUVENILE DELINQUENCY - Sex-offender reporting''' |
Juvenile court did not err in declining to relieve juvenile from sex-offender reporting at the end of his probation term. Affirmed. | Juvenile court did not err in declining to relieve juvenile from sex-offender reporting at the end of his probation term. Affirmed. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 39: | ||
Evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant possessed drug paraphernalia and residue in the center console of his car. Reversed. | Evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant possessed drug paraphernalia and residue in the center console of his car. Reversed. | ||
| − | Defendant told police that he had not known about | + | Defendant told police that he had not known about a straw with traces of methamphetamine on it, that his girlfriend had recently bought the car, and that they both used methamphetamine. |
Armstrong, dissenting, would have held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the right to control, and therefore constructively possessed, the methamphetamine. | Armstrong, dissenting, would have held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the right to control, and therefore constructively possessed, the methamphetamine. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:53, September 24, 2021
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCING - Special probation conditions
Special probation conditions were invalid because they were not imposed in open court. Reversed and remanded.
The court also held that a probation condition forbidding 'intimate' relationships was unenforceably vague, and a condition forbidding alcohol use was not supported by the record. Finally, the court reversed convictions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts.
State v. Gaona-Mandujano 314 Or App 654 (September 22, 2021) (Ortega) (Marion County, Leith)
EXPUNCTION - Findings of fact
Trial court could properly review underlying record to determine if criminal mistreatment conviction was an unexpungeable child abuse conviction. Affirmed.
The court also observed that the defendant, as movant, bore the burden of proof, but the indictment, plea petition, and judgment were collectively insufficient to carry it. Defendant declined the trial court's offer to provide more information.
State v. Sylva 314 Or App 661 (September 22, 2021) (Tookey) (Marion County, Klapstein)
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY - Sex-offender reporting
Juvenile court did not err in declining to relieve juvenile from sex-offender reporting at the end of his probation term. Affirmed.
Aokagi, concurring, observed that the statute required the juvenile to prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence, such a high bar that the appellate court would rarely reverse a court's finding that the burden was unmet.
State v. A. R. H. 314 Or App 672 (September 22, 2021) (Tookey, Aoyagi concurring) (Clackamas County, Gilmartin)
POSSESSION - Constructive possession
Evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant possessed drug paraphernalia and residue in the center console of his car. Reversed.
Defendant told police that he had not known about a straw with traces of methamphetamine on it, that his girlfriend had recently bought the car, and that they both used methamphetamine.
Armstrong, dissenting, would have held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the right to control, and therefore constructively possessed, the methamphetamine.
State v. Kulick 314 Or App 680 (September 22, 2021) (Tookey, Armstrong dissenting) (Yamhill County, Chapman)
COERCION - Sufficiency
Dragging the victim out of her car did not constitute coercion. Reversed.
The court explained that coercion is using a threat to induce the victim to act. Physically forcing the victim to act is not coercion. The court also reversed an assault conviction based on a nonunanimous jury verdict.
State v. Powe 314 Or App 726 (September 22, 2021) (Aoyagi) (Multnomah County, Bottomly)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Scope of traffic stop
There was no basis to deploy a drug dog during a traffic stop. Reversed.
By directing defendant, a passenger, to remain in the car, police also stopped him.
State v. Allen 314 Or App 735 (September 22, 2021) (Powers) (Coos County, Stone)
