Oregon Appellate Court 01-19-11
by: Abassos • January 18, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Dependency - Judgment must contain 476(2)(b,c) Findings
- Merger - Burglary
- Sex Abuse - Diagnosis of Abuse Without Physical Evidence
Not much today. One dependency case and 3 per curiam opinions with not one iota of new law.
Dependency - Judgment must contain 476(2)(b,c) findings
Because the plan in effect at the time of the permanency hearing was adoption, the court was required to include 476(2)(b) and(c) findings in the permanency judgment:
(b): whether the department has made reasonable efforts to place the ward in a timely manner in accordance with the plan, including, if appropriate, reasonable efforts to place the ward through an interstate placement, and to complete the steps necessary to finalize the permanent placement. (c): whether the department has considered permanent placement options for the ward, including, if appropriate, whether the department has considered both in-state placement options and permanent interstate placement options for the ward.
Reversed. DHS v. WF
Merger - Burglary
One entry with multiple intended crimes charged as multiple counts in the indictment merges into a single crime of Burglary. See State v. White. Per curiam, conceded reversal. State v. Vineyard
Sex Abuse - Diagnosis of Abuse Without Physical Evidence
When a CARES nurse gives a diagnosis of abuse (or anything approaching a diagnosis), the correct objection is vouching, not invalid scientific evidence. You can make both objections but the one that will get the case reversed is vouching. See Southard, Merrimon, Lovern. State v. Graue, State v. Orellano
