https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&feed=atom&action=historyBlog:Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court – December 28, 2017 - Revision history2024-03-29T10:22:22ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.19.24https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26328&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:51, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:51:18Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:51, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 135:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 135:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158353.pdf State v. Rosette], 289 Or App 581 (2017) (DeHoog, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158353.pdf State v. Rosette], 289 Or App 581 (2017) (DeHoog, P.J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{wl-publish: 2018-01-02 13:51:18 -0800 | Msofia@ocdla.org:Mary A. Sofia }}</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26327&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:50, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:50:18Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:50, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 94:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 94:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In view of the statute’s text and context and maxims of statutory construction, the court concludes that the juvenile court retained authority to enter the modification order to require the DNA sample, which does not constitute punishment and was not imposed as a sanction.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In view of the statute’s text and context and maxims of statutory construction, the court concludes that the juvenile court retained authority to enter the modification order to require the DNA sample, which does not constitute punishment and was not imposed as a sanction.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158058.pdf State v. E.C.<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-</del>P], 289 Or App 569 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158058.pdf State v. E.C.P<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</ins>], 289 Or App 569 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</div></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26326&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:47, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:47:24Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:47, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 72:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 72:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>The court concludes that defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal and that the detective’s statement, which parroted that defendant had a right to invoke, did not sufficiently clarify defendant’s invocation. Rather, the detective impermissibly continued the interrogation without a break in time or change in circumstances to allow for a waiver of a previously invoked right. Finally, the court concludes that the trial court’s error in denying suppression was not harmless.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>The court concludes that defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal and that the detective’s statement, which parroted that defendant had a right to invoke, did not sufficiently clarify defendant’s invocation. Rather, the detective impermissibly continued the interrogation without a break in time or change in circumstances to allow for a waiver of a previously invoked right. Finally, the court concludes that the trial court’s error in denying suppression was not harmless.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160638.pdf State v. Hickman], 289 Or App 602 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160638.pdf State v. Hickman], 289 Or App 602 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 80:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 80:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In totality of circumstances, record adequate to show that trial court conducted OEC 403 balancing and permit meaningful appellate review.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In totality of circumstances, record adequate to show that trial court conducted OEC 403 balancing and permit meaningful appellate review.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and assigns error to the trial court’s admission of evidence that defendant possessed a syringe absent a record demonstrating OEC 403 balancing. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The state argues that defendant failed to preserve his contention. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court concludes that defendant’s argument is preserved for appeal<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">; </del>a request that a court balance the probative value of evidence against its unfair prejudice preserves a contention that the trial court failed to create a record demonstrating 403 balancing. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>However, in the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the court conducted the required balancing and is sufficient for meaningful appellate review.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and assigns error to the trial court’s admission of evidence that defendant possessed a syringe absent a record demonstrating OEC 403 balancing. The state argues that defendant failed to preserve his contention. The court concludes that defendant’s argument is preserved for appeal<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">: </ins>a request that a court balance the probative value of evidence against its unfair prejudice preserves a contention that the trial court failed to create a record demonstrating 403 balancing. However, in the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the court conducted the required balancing and is sufficient for meaningful appellate review.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160313.pdf State v. Ydrogo], 289 Or App 488 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160313.pdf State v. Ydrogo], 289 Or App 488 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>'''<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 90:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 90:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Juvenile court retained authority following termination of jurisdiction to modify delinquency disposition to lift “deferral” of requirement that youth provide a DNA sample because DNA sample requirement is not punishment, was not imposed as a sanction, and juvenile court lacked authority to defer requirement initially.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Juvenile court retained authority following termination of jurisdiction to modify delinquency disposition to lift “deferral” of requirement that youth provide a DNA sample because DNA sample requirement is not punishment, was not imposed as a sanction, and juvenile court lacked authority to defer requirement initially.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Youth appeals from an order of a juvenile court modifying youth’s delinquency disposition. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>ORS 419.610 permits a juvenile court to “modify or set aside any order made by it upon such notice and with such hearing as the court may direct.” <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Here, in 2004, the juvenile court erroneously “deferred” two conditions, the requirements that youth provide a DNA sample and comply with sex offender registration laws. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>A decade later, after jurisdiction had been terminated, the trial court modified the delinquency disposition by lifting the deferrals of the two conditions. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court concludes that this case is moot with respect to the requirement that youth register as a sex offender because current statutes require him to register as a sex offender in the absence of a court order to register. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>With respect to the requirement that he provide a DNA sample, youth argues that as a matter of statutory construction and due process, ORS 419C.610 did not authorize the state to impose additional requirements upon a youth offender after the youth has fully served his disposition and jurisdiction is terminated. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>In view of the statute’s text and context and maxims of statutory construction, the court concludes that the juvenile court retained authority to enter the modification order to require the DNA sample, which does not constitute punishment and was not imposed as a sanction.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Youth appeals from an order of a juvenile court modifying youth’s delinquency disposition. ORS 419.610 permits a juvenile court to “modify or set aside any order made by it upon such notice and with such hearing as the court may direct.” Here, in 2004, the juvenile court erroneously “deferred” two conditions, the requirements that youth provide a DNA sample and comply with sex offender registration laws. A decade later, after jurisdiction had been terminated, the trial court modified the delinquency disposition by lifting the deferrals of the two conditions. The court concludes that this case is moot with respect to the requirement that youth register as a sex offender because current statutes require him to register as a sex offender in the absence of a court order to register. With respect to the requirement that he provide a DNA sample, youth argues that as a matter of statutory construction and due process, ORS 419C.610 did not authorize the state to impose additional requirements upon a youth offender after the youth has fully served his disposition and jurisdiction is terminated.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In view of the statute’s text and context and maxims of statutory construction, the court concludes that the juvenile court retained authority to enter the modification order to require the DNA sample, which does not constitute punishment and was not imposed as a sanction.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158058.pdf State v. E.C.-P], 289 Or App 569 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158058.pdf State v. E.C.-P], 289 Or App 569 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 106:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 108:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Judgment dismissing meritless petition not appealable.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Judgment dismissing meritless petition not appealable.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Petitioner/defendant appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Appointed counsel filed an affidavit averring that the petition could not be construed to state a ground for relief or be amended to do so.  After a hearing on the sufficiency of the petition, the post-conviction court entered a general judgment of dismissal with prejudice.  The court concludes that the general judgment is a “judgment dismissing a meritless petition” and, hence, is not appealable.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Petitioner/defendant appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. Appointed counsel filed an affidavit averring that the petition could not be construed to state a ground for relief or be amended to do so.  After a hearing on the sufficiency of the petition, the post-conviction court entered a general judgment of dismissal with prejudice.  The court concludes that the general judgment is a “judgment dismissing a meritless petition” and, hence, is not appealable.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161248.pdf Gilderson v. Taylor], 289 Or App 496 (2017) (Lagesen, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161248.pdf Gilderson v. Taylor], 289 Or App 496 (2017) (Lagesen, P.J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 116:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 118:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Automobile exception justifies warrantless search of vehicle where officers stop vehicle to execute felony warrant and develop probable cause to search during lawful stop.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Automobile exception justifies warrantless search of vehicle where officers stop vehicle to execute felony warrant and develop probable cause to search during lawful stop.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery of heroin, unlawful possession of heroin, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of the trunk of his car. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Police initiated a stop of defendant, who was the subject of a felony arrest warrant, while defendant was driving. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The officers discovered that defendant had a suspended license and decided to impound the car. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Pursuant to department policy, the officers inventoried the vehicle and discovered a cigarette case containing drug paraphernalia and heroin, electronic scales, and air fresheners and dryer sheets stuffed behind the car’s air vents.  Subsequent searches of bags in the trunk revealed methamphetamine, heroin, pills, cash, an additional scale, and a glass pipe with residue. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant raised several challenges to the search, and the trial court denied the motion, ruling, among other things, that the search was lawful under the automobile exception. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>On appeal, defendant argues that the automobile exception did not apply because the car was not mobile when the officers encountered the vehicle in connection with the investigation of a crime.  Specifically, defendant asserts that the officers stopped the vehicle because of the arrest warrant and developed probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of a crime when the car was no longer mobile. The appellate concludes that the automobile exception justified the warrantless search because defendant’s car was mobile when officers encountered it in connection with defendant’s felony arrest warrant and, during a lawful stop, developed probable cause to search the trunk of the car.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery of heroin, unlawful possession of heroin, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of the trunk of his car. Police initiated a stop of defendant, who was the subject of a felony arrest warrant, while defendant was driving. The officers discovered that defendant had a suspended license and decided to impound the car. Pursuant to department policy, the officers inventoried the vehicle and discovered a cigarette case containing drug paraphernalia and heroin, electronic scales, and air fresheners and dryer sheets stuffed behind the car’s air vents.  Subsequent searches of bags in the trunk revealed methamphetamine, heroin, pills, cash, an additional scale, and a glass pipe with residue.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant raised several challenges to the search, and the trial court denied the motion, ruling, among other things, that the search was lawful under the automobile exception. On appeal, defendant argues that the automobile exception did not apply because the car was not mobile when the officers encountered the vehicle in connection with the investigation of a crime.  Specifically, defendant asserts that the officers stopped the vehicle because of the arrest warrant and developed probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of a crime when the car was no longer mobile. The appellate concludes that the automobile exception justified the warrantless search because defendant’s car was mobile when officers encountered it in connection with defendant’s felony arrest warrant and, during a lawful stop, developed probable cause to search the trunk of the car.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158224.pdf State v. Campbell], 289 Or App 442 (2017) (Hadlock, C.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158224.pdf State v. Campbell], 289 Or App 442 (2017) (Hadlock, C.J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 125:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 129:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Trial court applied the wrong formula to calculate restitution damages by calculating damages based on loss of use instead of conversion.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Trial court applied the wrong formula to calculate restitution damages by calculating damages based on loss of use instead of conversion.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft and assigns error to the trial court’s ruling allowing a witness to testify about his examination of property that had been unlawfully seized and to the court’s restitution award. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Acting on a tip, police determined that defendant had a stolen Bobcat on his property. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant said that he had purchased the Bobcat in 2004 and had a bill of sale. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>An officer went to defendant’s property and seized the Bobcat without a warrant.  During a police interview, defendant estimated that the Bobcat was worth $8,000. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>At trial, an officer who examined the Bobcat after its seizure testified that the Bobcat was worth $10,000. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>After a jury found defendant guilty, the trial court imposed restitution based on the rental value of the Bobcat. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court concludes that any error in allowing the officer to testify about the value of the Bobcat is harmless in view of defendant’s own valuation of the Bobcat, which was above the $1,000 necessary to prove first-degree theft. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court holds that the trial court incorrectly relied on a loss-of-use formula to calculate restitution. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>For permanent or long-term deprivations, the conversion-based theory of recovery applies. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Under that theory, the measure of damages is the reasonable market value of the goods at the time and place of the conversion plus interest and less the value of the property at the time of return if the property is returned plus interest from that date.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft and assigns error to the trial court’s ruling allowing a witness to testify about his examination of property that had been unlawfully seized and to the court’s restitution award.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Acting on a tip, police determined that defendant had a stolen Bobcat on his property. Defendant said that he had purchased the Bobcat in 2004 and had a bill of sale. An officer went to defendant’s property and seized the Bobcat without a warrant.  During a police interview, defendant estimated that the Bobcat was worth $8,000. At trial, an officer who examined the Bobcat after its seizure testified that the Bobcat was worth $10,000. After a jury found defendant guilty, the trial court imposed restitution based on the rental value of the Bobcat. The court concludes that any error in allowing the officer to testify about the value of the Bobcat is harmless in view of defendant’s own valuation of the Bobcat, which was above the $1,000 necessary to prove first-degree theft. The court holds that the trial court incorrectly relied on a loss-of-use formula to calculate restitution. For permanent or long-term deprivations, the conversion-based theory of recovery applies. Under that theory, the measure of damages is the reasonable market value of the goods at the time and place of the conversion plus interest and less the value of the property at the time of return if the property is returned plus interest from that date.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158353.pdf State v. Rosette], 289 Or App 581 (2017) (DeHoog, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158353.pdf State v. Rosette], 289 Or App 581 (2017) (DeHoog, P.J.)</div></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26325&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:41, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:41:26Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:41, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 40:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 40:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>An emergency room nurse is not an “emergency medical services provider,” within meaning of the third-degree assault statute, ORS 163.165(1)(g). <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant is not required to provide notice of lay witness mental disease or defect evidence.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>An emergency room nurse is not an “emergency medical services provider,” within meaning of the third-degree assault statute, ORS 163.165(1)(g). Defendant is not required to provide notice of lay witness mental disease or defect evidence.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>    </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>    </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider and second-degree criminal mischief and raises two assignments of error. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant, a patient in an emergency room, struck an emergency room nurse in the head, causing injury, and damaged hospital equipment. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the third-degree assault count because the nurse was not an “emergency medical services provider” and also erred in excluding lay witness testimony relevant to the mens rea on each conviction. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>In view of the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 163.165(1)(g) and ORS 682.025(4), the court concludes that the legislature did not intend for an emergency room nurse to be included in the definition of an emergency medical services provider. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court also concludes that that the trial court erred in ruling that the lay witness testimony suggesting that defendant had a mental disease or defect was inadmissible because defendant had not provided notice under ORS 161.309(2). <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The notice requirement applies to expert testimony; defendant does not have to provide notice of mental disease or defect evidence from a lay witness.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider and second-degree criminal mischief and raises two assignments of error. Defendant, a patient in an emergency room, struck an emergency room nurse in the head, causing injury, and damaged hospital equipment. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the third-degree assault count because the nurse was not an “emergency medical services provider” and also erred in excluding lay witness testimony relevant to the mens rea on each conviction.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In view of the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 163.165(1)(g) and ORS 682.025(4), the court concludes that the legislature did not intend for an emergency room nurse to be included in the definition of an emergency medical services provider. The court also concludes that that the trial court erred in ruling that the lay witness testimony suggesting that defendant had a mental disease or defect was inadmissible because defendant had not provided notice under ORS 161.309(2). The notice requirement applies to expert testimony; defendant does not have to provide notice of mental disease or defect evidence from a lay witness.  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>    </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>    </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160413.pdf State v. Bales], 289 Or App 470 (2017) (DeVore, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160413.pdf State v. Bales], 289 Or App 470 (2017) (DeVore, P.J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>'''<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Variance between the state’s pleading and proof impermissibly prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">defendant </del>against a different theory than that specified in the indictment.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Variance between the state’s pleading and proof impermissibly prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">defend </ins>against a different theory than that specified in the indictment.  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for, among other crimes, felon in possession of a firearm and raises two assignments of error in which he asserts the trial court erred in allowing the state to proceed on a different theory of felon in possession of a firearm than what was alleged in the indictment. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The charge alleged that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm having been previously convicted of a felony “within the past 15 years.” <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The state may also prove a violation of the felon in possession of a firearm statute, ORS 166.270, by showing that the person has been convicted of more than one felony.  The record at trial established that defendant had an 8-year old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a felony, that had been treated as a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Defendant also had 1989 convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of the misdemeanor conviction as irrelevant and the 1989 convictions as irrelevant because they occurred outside the time period alleged in the indictment. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The trial court excluded the misdemeanor conviction, but denied the motion in limine with respect to the felonies on the grounds that “within the past 15 years” was not a material element of the felon-in possession charge and that defendant would not be prejudiced by allowing the state to rely on the 1989 convictions. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Following the state’s case-in-chief, defendant renewed his arguments in a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>A variance between an allegation in an indictment and the state’s proof at trial is impermissible if the variance concerns a material element or prejudices defendant. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Here, defendant conceded at trial that the phrase “within the past 15 years” was not a material element. The court concludes that the variance prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to defend against a different theory than that specified in the indictment. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court also rejects the state’s argument the trial court could allow the state to amend the indictment to delete the phrase “within the past 15 years” to correct a defect in the form of the indictment because the state failed to carry its burden of proving that the factual theory upon which the grand jury based its indictment was the same one that the state relied on at trial.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for, among other crimes, felon in possession of a firearm and raises two assignments of error in which he asserts the trial court erred in allowing the state to proceed on a different theory of felon in possession of a firearm than what was alleged in the indictment. The charge alleged that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm having been previously convicted of a felony “within the past 15 years.” The state may also prove a violation of the felon in possession of a firearm statute, ORS 166.270, by showing that the person has been convicted of more than one felony.  The record at trial established that defendant had an 8-year old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a felony, that had been treated as a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. Defendant also had 1989 convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of the misdemeanor conviction as irrelevant and the 1989 convictions as irrelevant because they occurred outside the time period alleged in the indictment. The trial court excluded the misdemeanor conviction, but denied the motion in limine with respect to the felonies on the grounds that “within the past 15 years” was not a material element of the felon-in possession charge and that defendant would not be prejudiced by allowing the state to rely on the 1989 convictions. Following the state’s case-in-chief, defendant renewed his arguments in a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>A variance between an allegation in an indictment and the state’s proof at trial is impermissible if the variance concerns a material element or prejudices defendant. Here, defendant conceded at trial that the phrase “within the past 15 years” was not a material element. The court concludes that the variance prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to defend against a different theory than that specified in the indictment. The court also rejects the state’s argument <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that </ins>the trial court could allow the state to amend the indictment to delete the phrase “within the past 15 years” to correct a defect in the form of the indictment because the state failed to carry its burden of proving that the factual theory upon which the grand jury based its indictment was the same one that the state relied on at trial.  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155273.pdf State v. Samuel], 289 Or App 618 (2017) (Duncan, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155273.pdf State v. Samuel], 289 Or App 618 (2017) (Duncan, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 60:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 66:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal, detectives impermissibly failed to clarify defendant’s intent, and defendant’s subsequent responses did not <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>voluntarily reinitiate conversation.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal, detectives impermissibly failed to clarify defendant’s intent, and defendant’s subsequent responses did not voluntarily reinitiate conversation.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree manslaughter with a firearm and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements made following his invocation of the right to counsel. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Detectives interviewed defendant following his arrest for murder. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>During the interview, defendant said, “Well can I, I, I, really don’t wanna say too much * * * I would rather have my lawyer with me but,” at which point one detective said that was “completely [his] right.” <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>After six seconds of silence, the detective said, “[I]f that’s the way you wanna go with it then that’s the way we play it. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>We came here to try to get your side of it though because we believe that there’s more to it.”  Afterwards, defendant made incriminating statements, including that the shooting was an accident. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The court concludes that defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal and that the detective’s statement, which parroted that defendant had a right to invoke, did not sufficiently clarify defendant’s invocation. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Rather, the detective impermissibly continued the interrogation without a break in time or change in circumstances to allow for a waiver of a previously invoked right. Finally the court concludes that the trial court’s error in denying suppression was not harmless.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree manslaughter with a firearm and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements made following his invocation of the right to counsel. Detectives interviewed defendant following his arrest for murder. During the interview, defendant said, “Well can I, I, I, really don’t wanna say too much * * * I would rather have my lawyer with me but,” at which point one detective said that was “completely [his] right.” After six seconds of silence, the detective said, “[I]f that’s the way you wanna go with it then that’s the way we play it. We came here to try to get your side of it though because we believe that there’s more to it.”  Afterwards, defendant made incriminating statements, including that the shooting was an accident.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>The court concludes that defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal and that the detective’s statement, which parroted that defendant had a right to invoke, did not sufficiently clarify defendant’s invocation. Rather, the detective impermissibly continued the interrogation without a break in time or change in circumstances to allow for a waiver of a previously invoked right. Finally<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, </ins>the court concludes that the trial court’s error in denying suppression was not harmless.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160638.pdf State v. Hickman], 289 Or App 602 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160638.pdf State v. Hickman], 289 Or App 602 (2017) (James, J.)</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>'''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing'''  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing'''  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In totality of circumstances, record adequate to show that trial court conducted OEC 403 balancing and permit meaningful appellate review.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>In totality of circumstances, record adequate to show that trial court conducted OEC 403 balancing and permit meaningful appellate review.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26324&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:36, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:36:17Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:36, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 22:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 22:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></summary></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></summary></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</del><<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">big>APPEALS</</del>big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>'''<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Written</ins>/<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Summarized by Erin Severe, OPDS | Edited by Mary A. Sofia, OCDLA</ins>'''</big></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>CRIMES<</del>/<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA''' </del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>'''<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"><big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</del></big><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing''' </del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal''' </del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>SENTENCING</big>'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages'''</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>APPEALS</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>APPEALS</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 50:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 30:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Appellate court may not consider state’s proffered alternative basis for affirmance where youth could have created a different record had the state raised argument in the juvenile court.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Appellate court may not consider state’s proffered alternative basis for affirmance where youth could have created a different record had the state raised argument in the juvenile court.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Youth appeals a judgment finding her within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unauthorized use of a vehicle. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Youth assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress statements she made to her juvenile probation officer. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>On appeal, the state essentially concedes that the trial court erred in denying suppression on the grounds advanced in the trial court, but argues that the appellate court should affirm the trial court’s ruling on an alternative basis. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The appellate court concludes that it may not affirm on the proffered alternative basis because, had the state raised that argument below, youth could have created a different record that could have affected the disposition of that issue.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Youth appeals a judgment finding her within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unauthorized use of a vehicle. Youth assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress statements she made to her juvenile probation officer. On appeal, the state essentially concedes that the trial court erred in denying suppression on the grounds advanced in the trial court, but argues that the appellate court should affirm the trial court’s ruling on an alternative basis. The appellate court concludes that it may not affirm on the proffered alternative basis because, had the state raised that argument below, youth could have created a different record that could have affected the disposition of that issue.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161281.pdf State v. M.S.S.K.], 289 Or App 450 (2017) (Egan, P.J.)</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161281.pdf State v. M.S.S.K.], 289 Or App 450 (2017) (Egan, P.J.)</div></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26323&oldid=prevMary@sofiadefense.com at 21:33, January 2, 20182018-01-02T21:33:29Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 21:33, January 2, 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><summary hidden></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><summary hidden></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>APPEALS</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''</ins><big>APPEALS</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>CRIMES</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''<big>SENTENCING</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*'''Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"></summary></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''<big>APPEALS</big>'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">*'''Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>CRIMES</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>CRIMES</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA'''  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA'''  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>'''<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>'''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>EVIDENCE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing'''  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> '''</ins><big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing'''  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal'''  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal'''  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">*</ins>'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>SENTENCING</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>SENTENCING</big>'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">*'''Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'''Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages'''</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></summary></del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>APPEALS</big>'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  '''<big>APPEALS</big>'''</div></td></tr>
</table>Mary@sofiadefense.comhttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26321&oldid=prevErin.j.severe@opds.state.or.us at 23:51, December 30, 20172017-12-30T23:51:01Z<p></p>
<a href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26321&oldid=26320">Show changes</a>Erin.j.severe@opds.state.or.ushttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26320&oldid=prevErin.j.severe@opds.state.or.us at 23:46, December 30, 20172017-12-30T23:46:39Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 23:46, December 30, 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 2:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 2:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>APPEALS</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>APPEALS</big></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>CRIMES</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>CRIMES</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>EVIDENCE</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>EVIDENCE</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">''' </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>SENTENCING</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins><big>SENTENCING</big><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></summary></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></summary></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>APPEALS</big></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>  <big>APPEALS</big></div></td></tr>
</table>Erin.j.severe@opds.state.or.ushttps://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_%E2%80%93_December_28,_2017&diff=26319&oldid=prevErin.j.severe@opds.state.or.us: Created page with "<summary hidden> <big>APPEALS</big> Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance <big>CRIMES</big> Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—..."2017-12-30T23:44:26Z<p>Created page with "<summary hidden> <big>APPEALS</big> Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance <big>CRIMES</big> Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div><summary hidden><br />
<big>APPEALS</big><br />
<br />
Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance<br />
<br />
<big>CRIMES</big><br />
<br />
Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA <br />
<br />
<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big><br />
<br />
Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof<br />
<br />
<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big><br />
<br />
Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver<br />
<br />
<big>EVIDENCE</big><br />
<br />
Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses<br />
<br />
Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing <br />
<br />
<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big><br />
<br />
Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition<br />
<br />
Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction<br />
<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big><br />
<br />
PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal <br />
<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big><br />
Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception<br />
<big>SENTENCING</big><br />
Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages<br />
</summary><br />
<big>APPEALS</big><br />
Appeals—Alternative Basis for Affirmance<br />
Appellate court may not consider state’s proffered alternative basis for affirmance where youth could have created a different record had the state raised argument in the juvenile court.<br />
Youth appeals a judgment finding her within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unauthorized use of a vehicle. Youth assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress statements she made to her juvenile probation officer. On appeal, the state essentially concedes that the trial court erred in denying suppression on the grounds advanced in the trial court, but argues that the appellate court should affirm the trial court’s ruling on an alternative basis. The appellate court concludes that it may not affirm on the proffered alternative basis because, had the state raised that argument below, youth could have created a different record that could have affected the disposition of that issue.<br />
<br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161281.pdf State v. M.S.S.K.], 289 Or App 450 (2017) (Egan, P.J.)<br />
<big>CRIMES</big><br />
Crimes—Third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider—MJOA <br />
Evidence—Mental Disease or Defect Notice Requirement—Lay Witnesses<br />
An emergency room nurse is not an “emergency medical services provider,” within meaning of the third-degree assault statute, ORS 163.165(1)(g). Defendant is not required to provide notice of lay witness mental disease or defect evidence. <br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for third-degree assault of an emergency medical services provider and second-degree criminal mischief and raises two assignments of error. Defendant, a patient in an emergency room, struck an emergency room nurse in the head, causing injury, and damaged hospital equipment. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the third-degree assault count because the nurse was not an “emergency medical services provider” and also erred in excluding lay witness testimony relevant to the mens rea on each conviction. In view of the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 163.165(1)(g) and ORS 682.025(4), the court concludes that the legislature did not intend for an emergency room nurse to be included in the definition of an emergency medical services provider. The court also concludes that that the trial court erred in ruling that the lay witness testimony suggesting that defendant had a mental disease or defect was inadmissible because defendant had not provided notice under ORS 161.309(2). The notice requirement applies to expert testimony; defendant does not have to provide notice of mental disease or defect evidence from a lay witness. <br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160413.pdf State v. Bales], 289 Or App 470 (2017) (DeVore, P.J.)<br />
<big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big><br />
Criminal Procedure—Variance between pleading and proof<br />
Variance between the state’s pleading and proof impermissibly prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to defendant against a different theory than that specified in the indictment. <br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for, among other crimes, felon in possession of a firearm and raises two assignments of error in which he asserts the trial court erred in allowing the state to proceed on a different theory of felon in possession of a firearm than what was alleged in the indictment. The charge alleged that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm having been previously convicted of a felony “within the past 15 years.” The state may also prove a violation of the felon in possession of a firearm statute, ORS 166.270, by showing that the person has been convicted of more than one felony. The record at trial established that defendant had an 8-year old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a felony, that had been treated as a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. Defendant also had 1989 convictions for delivery and possession of controlled substances. Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of the misdemeanor conviction as irrelevant and the 1989 convictions as irrelevant because they occurred outside the time period alleged in the indictment. The trial court excluded the misdemeanor conviction, but denied the motion in limine with respect to the felonies on the grounds that “within the past 15 years” was not a material element of the felon-in possession charge and that defendant would not be prejudiced by allowing the state to rely on the 1989 convictions. Following the state’s case-in-chief, defendant renewed his arguments in a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. A variance between an allegation in an indictment and the state’s proof at trial is impermissible if the variance concerns a material element or prejudices defendant. Here, defendant conceded at trial that the phrase “within the past 15 years” was not a material element. The court concludes that the variance prejudiced defendant because it required defendant to defend against a different theory than that specified in the indictment. The court also rejects the state’s argument the trial court could allow the state to amend the indictment to delete the phrase “within the past 15 years” to correct a defect in the form of the indictment because the state failed to carry its burden of proving that the factual theory upon which the grand jury based its indictment was the same one that the state relied on at trial. <br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155273.pdf State v. Samuel], 289 Or App 618 (2017) (Duncan, J.)<br />
<big>CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION/MIRANDA</big><br />
<br />
Custodial Interrogation—Right to Counsel—Invocation & Waiver<br />
<br />
Defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal, detectives impermissibly failed to clarify defendant’s intent, and defendant’s subsequent responses did not voluntarily reinitiate conversation.<br />
<br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree manslaughter with a firearm and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements made following his invocation of the right to counsel. Detectives interviewed defendant following his arrest for murder. During the interview, defendant said, “Well can I, I, I, really don’t wanna say too much * * * I would rather have my lawyer with me but,” at which point one detective said that was “completely [his] right.” After six seconds of silence, the detective said, “[I]f that’s the way you wanna go with it then that’s the way we play it. We came here to try to get your side of it though because we believe that there’s more to it.” Afterwards, defendant made incriminating statements, including that the shooting was an accident. The court concludes that defendant’s invocation was, at the very least, equivocal and that the detective’s statement, which parroted that defendant had a right to invoke, did not sufficiently clarify defendant’s invocation. Rather, the detective impermissibly continued the interrogation without a break in time or change in circumstances to allow for a waiver of a previously invoked right. Finally the court concludes that the trial court’s error in denying suppression was not harmless. <br />
<br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160638.pdf State v. Hickman], 289 Or App 602 (2017) (James, J.)<br />
<big>EVIDENCE</big><br />
Evidence—OEC 403—Record of Balancing <br />
In totality of circumstances, record adequate to show that trial court conducted OEC 403 balancing and permit meaningful appellate review.<br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and assigns error to the trial court’s admission of evidence that defendant possessed a syringe absent a record demonstrating OEC 403 balancing. The state argues that defendant failed to preserve his contention. The court concludes that defendant’s argument is preserved for appeal; a request that a court balance the probative value of evidence against its unfair prejudice preserves a contention that the trial court failed to create a record demonstrating 403 balancing. However, in the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the court conducted the required balancing and is sufficient for meaningful appellate review.<br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A160313.pdf State v. Ydrogo], 289 Or App 488 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)<br />
<big>JUVENILE DEPENDENCY/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY</big><br />
<br />
Juvenile Delinquency—Juvenile Court’s Authority to Modify Disposition<br />
Juvenile court retained authority following termination of jurisdiction to modify delinquency disposition to lift “deferral” of requirement that youth provide a DNA sample because DNA sample requirement is not punishment, was not imposed as a sanction, and juvenile court lacked authority to defer requirement initially. <br />
Youth appeals from an order of a juvenile court modifying youth’s delinquency disposition. ORS 419.610 permits a juvenile court to “modify or set aside any order made by it upon such notice and with such hearing as the court may direct.” Here, in 2004, the juvenile court erroneously “deferred” two conditions, the requirements that youth provide a DNA sample and comply with sex offender registration laws. A decade later, after jurisdiction had been terminated, the trial court modified the delinquency disposition by lifting the deferrals of the two conditions. The court concludes that this case is moot with respect to the requirement that youth register as a sex offender because current statutes require him to register as a sex offender in the absence of a court order to register. With respect to the requirement that he provide a DNA sample, youth argues that as a matter of statutory construction and due process, ORS 419C.610 did not authorize the state to impose additional requirements upon a youth offender after the youth has fully served his disposition and jurisdiction is terminated. In view of the statute’s text and context and maxims of statutory construction, the court concludes that the juvenile court retained authority to enter the modification order to require the DNA sample, which does not constitute punishment and was not imposed as a sanction. <br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158058.pdf State v. E.C.-P], 289 Or App 569 (2017) (DeHoog, J.)<br />
Juvenile Dependency—Rational Relationship To Basis for Jurisdiction<br />
Juvenile court erred in ordering father to undergo psychological evaluation because Department of Human Services did not allege that father had psychological problems that contributed to the bases for jurisdiction. <br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A165304.pdf Dept. of Human Services v. F.D.B.], 289 Or App 633 (2017) (Per Curiam)<br />
<big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big><br />
<br />
PCR—Meritless Petition—Appeal <br />
Judgment dismissing meritless petition not appealable. <br />
Petitioner/defendant appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. Appointed counsel filed an affidavit averring that the petition could not be construed to state a ground for relief or be amended to do so. After a hearing on the sufficiency of the petition, the post-conviction court entered a general judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The court concludes that the general judgment is a “judgment dismissing a meritless petition” and, hence, is not appealable. <br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A161248.pdf Gilderson v. Taylor], 289 Or App 496 (2017) (Lagesen, P.J.)<br />
<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big><br />
Motion to Suppress—Warrantless Search—Automobile Exception<br />
Automobile exception justifies warrantless search of vehicle where officers stop vehicle to execute felony warrant and develop probable cause to search during lawful stop.<br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery of heroin, unlawful possession of heroin, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of the trunk of his car. Police initiated a stop of defendant, who was the subject of a felony arrest warrant, while defendant was driving. The officers discovered that defendant had a suspended license and decided to impound the car. Pursuant to department policy, the officers inventoried the vehicle and discovered a cigarette case containing drug paraphernalia and heroin, electronic scales, and air fresheners and dryer sheets stuffed behind the car’s air vents. Subsequent searches of bags in the trunk revealed methamphetamine, heroin, pills, cash, an additional scale, and a glass pipe with residue. Defendant raised several challenges to the search, and the trial court denied the motion, ruling, among other things, that the search was lawful under the automobile exception. On appeal, defendant argues that the automobile exception did not apply because the car was not mobile when the officers encountered the vehicle in connection with the investigation of a crime. Specifically, defendant asserts that the officers stopped the vehicle because of the arrest warrant and developed probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of a crime when the car was no longer mobile. The appellate concludes that the automobile exception justified the warrantless search because defendant’s car was mobile when officers encountered it in connection with defendant’s felony arrest warrant and, during a lawful stop, developed probable cause to search the trunk of the car.<br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158224.pdf State v. Campbell], 289 Or App 442 (2017) (Hadlock, C.J.)<br />
<big>SENTENCING</big><br />
Sentencing—Restitution—Loss of Use versus Conversion Damages<br />
Trial court applied the wrong formula to calculate restitution damages by calculating damages based on loss of use instead of conversion.<br />
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft and assigns error to the trial court’s ruling allowing a witness to testify about his examination of property that had been unlawfully seized and to the court’s restitution award. Acting on a tip, police determined that defendant had a stolen Bobcat on his property. Defendant said that he had purchased the Bobcat in 2004 and had a bill of sale. An officer went to defendant’s property and seized the Bobcat without a warrant. During a police interview, defendant estimated that the Bobcat was worth $8,000. At trial, an officer who examined the Bobcat after its seizure testified that the Bobcat was worth $10,000. After a jury found defendant guilty, the trial court imposed restitution based on the rental value of the Bobcat. The court concludes that any error in allowing the officer to testify about the value of the Bobcat is harmless in view of defendant’s own valuation of the Bobcat, which was above the $1,000 necessary to prove first-degree theft. The court holds that the trial court incorrectly relied on a loss-of-use formula to calculate restitution. For permanent or long-term deprivations, the conversion-based theory of recovery applies. Under that theory, the measure of damages is the reasonable market value of the goods at the time and place of the conversion plus interest and less the value of the property at the time of return if the property is returned plus interest from that date.<br />
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158353.pdf State v. Rosette], 289 Or App 581 (2017) (DeHoog, P.J.)</div>Erin.j.severe@opds.state.or.us