A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Oregon Appellate Court--January 31, 2018

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson IV • February 2, 2018 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

CIVIL COMMITMENT
  • CIVIL COMMITMENT—Mootness
  • CIVIL COMMITMENT—Plain error

Reaffirms State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or App 376, 385, 484 P2d 1117 (1971) (appeal from a civil commitment order does not become moot after the expiration of the commitment period.)

Reaffirms State v. M.M. (In a civil commitment hearing, judge’s failure to advise the person of all five elements from ORS 426.100(1) is plain error.)

State v. B.A.F. 290 Or App 1 (2018) (Egan, J.)

SELF-INCRIMINATION
  • SELF-INCRIMINATION-Interrogation

Defendant was arrested on a warrant. After defendant was handcuffed, and before administering Miranda warnings, the investigating officer asked defendant whether he possessed controlled substances. Defendant answered in the affirmative, and the officer located controlled substances in the defendant’s pocket.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals reversed. A police officer may question an arrested suspect, without Miranda warnings, about things that could endanger the police officer’s safety in conducting a patdown, but may not ask about contraband, such as controlled substances.

State v. Lanier 290 Or App 8 (2018) (Ortega, J.)


PCR/HABEAS CORPUS

Aguilar vs State of Oregon

In the underlying criminal trial, petitioner, then defendant, was accused of committing crimes in connection with her husband. Husband was called to testify, asserted a privilege against self-incrimination, and was excused from testifying.
In post-conviction relief, petitioner alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to object to the trial court’s ruling on the husband’s assertion of privilege. The post-conviction court rejected that argument, reasoning that petitioner had withdrawn it. On appeal, petitioner argued that she had not withdrawn the argument and the state confessed error. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of the argument.

Aguilar v. State of Oregon 290 Or App 48 (2018) (Shorr, J.)

CRIMES
  • CRIMES-Coercion

Defendant was convicted of, among other things, coercion. He was the former intimate partner of the victim, who had obtained a restraining order against him. Defendant visited the victim’s apartment in violation of the restraining order, refused to leave when she directed him to do so, struck her in the head with a pillow, ripped off her shorts and underwear, tried to bend her over the couch, and stopped when the victim asked if he as going to rape her. When she threatened to call the police, he said either that he had her phone or that it was broken. Thereafter, he told the victim to sit on the couch, which was the basis for the coercion charge.
On appeal, defendant argued that there was no evidence of a ‘threat,’ as required by the coercion statute. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the defendant’s conduct constituted an implicit threat, and that the trial court had not erred by denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

State v. McNair 290 Or App 55 (2018) (Aoyagi, J.)

CIVIL COMMITMENT

The court accepted the state's concession that the evidence had been insufficient to support appellant's involuntary civil commitment.

State v. G.L.L. 290 Or App 61 (Per curiam)