A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Oregon Appellate Court--September 13, 2017

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Msell@mpdlaw.com • September 26, 2017 • no comments

(Created page with "<summary hidden> * '''Hindering Prosecution—MJOA—Sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly “concealed” a person''' * * * * </summary> <big>'''Big text'''CRIMES...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<summary hidden>
 
<summary hidden>
 
* '''Hindering Prosecution—MJOA—Sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly “concealed” a person'''
 
* '''Hindering Prosecution—MJOA—Sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly “concealed” a person'''
*
+
*'''Parole & Post-Prison Supervision—Substantial Evidence and Substantial Reason'''
 
*
 
*
 
*
 
*
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had “concealed” Haussler.  The court disagrees, holding that a reasonable fact finder could find that defendant’s lies were intended to conceal Haussler’s physical presence by misleading the officer into believing that Haussler had not been recently present and was not likely present nearby.  For the same reasons, the court concludes that the detective had probable cause to arrest defendant for hindering prosecution.
 
Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had “concealed” Haussler.  The court disagrees, holding that a reasonable fact finder could find that defendant’s lies were intended to conceal Haussler’s physical presence by misleading the officer into believing that Haussler had not been recently present and was not likely present nearby.  For the same reasons, the court concludes that the detective had probable cause to arrest defendant for hindering prosecution.
 
  
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159994.pdf State v. Carpenter], 287 Or App 720 (2017) (DeVore, J.)
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159994.pdf State v. Carpenter], 287 Or App 720 (2017) (DeVore, J.)
 +
 +
<big>'''Big text'''EVIDENCE</big>
 +
 +
<big>'''Big text'''PAROLE/PPS</big>
 +
 +
Parole & Post-Prison Supervision—Substantial Evidence and Substantial Reason
 +
 +
The board’s order finding that petitioner/defendant had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time and declining to change petitioner’s terms of confinement were supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason.  Petitioner’s contention that the board erred in deferring his next murder review hearing should be deferred four years was moot. 
 +
 +
The board’s findings that evidence that petitioner was not likely to be rehabilitated in a reasonable period of time was supported notwithstanding evidence of his remorse and acceptance of responsibility, psychologists’ reports stating he would not violate the law and would conform to conditions of parole, no negative disciplinary history, and family support upon release.  The board relied on counterbalancing evidence of petitioner’s demeanor and testimony at the review hearing, which demonstrated a lack of empathy and a selfish and entitled attitude.  Additionally, the board could reasonably find that the psychologists’ conclusions favorable to petitioner were unreliable. The court further concluded that the board could reasonably find that petitioner lacked insight and failed to accept responsibility for his criminal behavior, particularly his history of domestic violence.  On the question of whether he had a mental or emotional disturbance that made him a danger to the health and safety of the community, the board could reasonably rely on one psychologist’s testimony that petitioner is narcissistic and could benefit from counseling if he were released.  Finally, in concluding that petitioner lacked an adequate parole plan, the board did not rely solely on the fact that petitioner had just under $1,000 in savings, but pointed to petitioner’s lack of forethought and intent to rely on food stamps and other subsidies.  The board’s order was supported by substantial reason.
 +
 +
The court did not reach the question of whether the board had erred in deferring his next murder review for four years because he has now received a hearing and, hence, resolution of that issue would have no practical effect.
 +
 +
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156319.pdf Wille v. Board of Parole], 287 Or App 709 (2017) (Devore, P.J.)
 +
 +
<big>'''Big text'''PCR/Habeas Corpus</big>
 +
 +
<big>'''Big text'''SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>

Revision as of 15:44, September 23, 2017

Big textCRIMES/CONTEMPT

Hindering Prosecution—MJOA—Sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly “concealed” a person.

Search and Seizure—Probable Cause—Officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed crime of hindering of prosecution

There was sufficient evidence for a fact finder to conclude that defendant had “concealed” a person wanted on a warrant based on defendant’s repeated denials that he knew the person or knew that anyone had fled. Here, a detective had gone to Haussler’s property to arrest Haussler on a warrant after receiving a tip that Haussler was there. The detective saw a pickup truck at the property and saw a person who he believed to be Haussler flee after he arrived. Defendant and a woman were also at the property. The detective told defendant that he had a warrant for Haussler’s arrest. Defendant repeatedly denied knowing Haussler and, when asked who had fled, did not acknowledge that anyone had run. Later, after Haussler was found nearby and arrested, defendant was arrested for hindering prosecution. Drugs were found on defendant at the jail.

Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had “concealed” Haussler. The court disagrees, holding that a reasonable fact finder could find that defendant’s lies were intended to conceal Haussler’s physical presence by misleading the officer into believing that Haussler had not been recently present and was not likely present nearby. For the same reasons, the court concludes that the detective had probable cause to arrest defendant for hindering prosecution.

State v. Carpenter, 287 Or App 720 (2017) (DeVore, J.)

Big textEVIDENCE
Big textPAROLE/PPS

Parole & Post-Prison Supervision—Substantial Evidence and Substantial Reason

The board’s order finding that petitioner/defendant had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time and declining to change petitioner’s terms of confinement were supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason. Petitioner’s contention that the board erred in deferring his next murder review hearing should be deferred four years was moot.

The board’s findings that evidence that petitioner was not likely to be rehabilitated in a reasonable period of time was supported notwithstanding evidence of his remorse and acceptance of responsibility, psychologists’ reports stating he would not violate the law and would conform to conditions of parole, no negative disciplinary history, and family support upon release. The board relied on counterbalancing evidence of petitioner’s demeanor and testimony at the review hearing, which demonstrated a lack of empathy and a selfish and entitled attitude. Additionally, the board could reasonably find that the psychologists’ conclusions favorable to petitioner were unreliable. The court further concluded that the board could reasonably find that petitioner lacked insight and failed to accept responsibility for his criminal behavior, particularly his history of domestic violence. On the question of whether he had a mental or emotional disturbance that made him a danger to the health and safety of the community, the board could reasonably rely on one psychologist’s testimony that petitioner is narcissistic and could benefit from counseling if he were released. Finally, in concluding that petitioner lacked an adequate parole plan, the board did not rely solely on the fact that petitioner had just under $1,000 in savings, but pointed to petitioner’s lack of forethought and intent to rely on food stamps and other subsidies. The board’s order was supported by substantial reason.

The court did not reach the question of whether the board had erred in deferring his next murder review for four years because he has now received a hearing and, hence, resolution of that issue would have no practical effect.

Wille v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 709 (2017) (Devore, P.J.)

Big textPCR/Habeas Corpus
Big textSEARCH & SEIZURE