Oregon Appellate Ct - Feb 15, 2017

Revision as of 15:15, February 20, 2017

Jones v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 283 Or App 650 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)

Sufficiency of Evidence - Sufficient Evidence that Defendant Recklessly Caused Death of Another Person

In this second-degree manslaughter case, the court concludes that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of causing another's death by driving. Defendant was coming down off of a methamphetamine binge, fell asleep while driving, and crashed into and killed another person. The court concludes that there was "ample circumstantial evidence" that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded his fatigue. Defendant was driving erratically before the crash and admitted to several people after the crash that he was really tired because he had been up all night. Additionally, there was evidence that defendant had taken drugs before the crash and that he was aware of the drugs' effects. A rational factfinder could infer that defendant knew he was having trouble staying awake well before the crash and that defendant was aware that he was driving on roads where other cars were being driven.

State v. Stuart, 283 Or App 672 (2017) (Egan, J.)

Parole - Board's Factual Findings Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

The court reverses three of the Board's factual findings in support of its conclusion, following a murder review hearing, that petitioner had not demonstrated that he was likely to be rehabilitated in a reasonable period of time. First, the Board concluded that petitioner had not worked while incarcerated. However, the factual record reveals that petitioner did work, albeit infrequently because he was house in administrative segregation for much of his term. Second, the Board concluded that petitioner "lacks a sense of indebtedness to his fellow citizens and Oregon taxpayers" because petitioner has financial resources available but has not repaid the cost of his defense and the cost of his incarceration. However, the evidence shows that petitioner thought that the Board would decide petitioner's liability for defense costs at the time of his release. Additionally, there was no evidence presented that petitioner was aware of any mechanism to reimburse the state during his incarceration. Third, the Board concluded that petitioner is still involved in "an adventure-seeking, risk-taking lifestyle." However, that finding was based on petitioner's cooperation with law enforcement while incarcerated and his intervention in a fight to help protect a corrections officer. Although the conduct was risky, it does not permit the inference that the Board drew. Instead, it was just as likely that the conduct represented petitioner's efforts to redeem himself.

King v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 283 Or App 689 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)

Juvenile Dependency - Juvenile Court Lacked Authority to Order DHS to Place Children with Grandparent

The court rejects parents and children's claims of error, holding that there was sufficient evidence that children were endangered and that the juvenile court properly concluded that it lacked authority to order DHS to place the children with their great-grandmother. Although the juvenile court, under ORS 419B.331, may take children under the protective supervision of the court and then give legal custody to great-grandmother, that was not parents' argument below. Instead, parents argued that even if the juvenile court placed the children in DHS custody, under ORS 419B.337(1), it could still order DHS to place the children with great-grandmother. The court concludes that the legislature di dnot intend to confer such authority on the juvenile court. Instead, DHS has the authority to determine the placement.

DHS v. S.E.K.H./J.K.H., 283 Or App 703 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)

Bell v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 283 Or App 711 (2017) (Garrett, J.)

Per Curiam - Multiple Sex Abuse Convictions Merged

Under State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427 (2016), guilty verdicts for sex abuse counts merged because they arose from the same conduct or criminal activity and because the acts were not separated by a sufficient pause.

State v. Phelps, 283 Or App 723 (2017) (per curiam)

Per Curiam - Trial Court Plainly Erred in Imposing Court-Appointed Attorney Fees

The court accepts the state's concession that the trial court erred in imposing the "relatively de minimus" $200 attorney fee award.

State v. Brockway, 283 Or App 726 (2017) (per curiam)