Oregon Appellate Court - Jan 22, 2014
by: Abassos • January 22, 2014 • no comments
DUII – Implied Consent Warnings Are Not Coercive
Consent to a urine test is not involuntary merely because it occurs after receiving implied consent warnings. The implied consent warnings are not inherently coercive. See Moore II. State v. Wieboldt
Unlawful Search – Intrusion Into a Closed Bedroom Without Invitation Is An Unlawful Search
Implied consent to enter the front room of a house to ensure the safety of an unconscious man at an estate sale does not extend to implied consent to enter closed bedrooms in order to find the owner of the house. State v. Danielson
Robbery II - Escape Hatch - Victim's Subjective Fear Not Enough
When assessing whether an “escape hatch” for second degree robbery applies, proof of the victim’s subjective fear is not sufficient to preclude a finding in favor of the defendant under ORS 137.712(2)(d)(B). The fear must also be objectively reasonable. Here, the defendant waved a pocket knife at the teller during a bank robbery and argued that although the teller claimed to be fearful, the court failed to determine whether the fear was objectively reasonable. The court found this error to be harmless because the sentencing court stated that there was no substantial and compelling reason to justify a downward departure sentence. The court found this case was appealable and reviewable under ORS 138.222(7). State v Brewer
Restitution Awards – Post-judgment Interest Unlawful In Restitution Awards
Post-judgment interest cannot be lawfully imposed as restitution. Here, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $26,004 plus 12 percent interest. Although the error was unpreserved, the court held that this was an appropriate case to correct an unpreserved error. State v. Cain
Merger – Sexual abuse
Multiple convictions for sexual abuse based on a single act of sexual contact merge into one conviction. State v. Disney
The Court Must Make a Record Regarding Defendant’s Decision To Proceed Pro Se
The court cannot summarily deny defendant’s request to proceed pro se without making a record of whether the defendant’s decision is an intelligent and understanding one, and whether granting the defendant’s request would disrupt the judicial process. State v. Chambery
