Oregon Appellate Ct - Nov 30, 2016

Revision as of 08:34, December 6, 2016

State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)

State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414 (2016) (Hadlock, C.J.)

DHS v. K.C., 282 Or App 448 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)

State v. J.J.-M., 282 Or App 459 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)

State v. Macias, 282 Or App 473 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)

DHS v. B.J.J., 282 Or App 488 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)

DHS v. L.D.K., 282 Or App 510 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)

Boyles v. Myrick, 282 Or App 517 (2016) (Lagesen, J.)

State v. Arreola, 282 Or App 555 (2016) (Tookey, J.)

State v. Eastman, 282 Or App 563 (2016) (Garrett, J.)

State v. Almarez-Martinez, 282 Or App 576 (2016) (Flynn, J.)

State v. Pobor, 282 Or App 600 (2016) (DeHoog, J.)

State v. Potter, 282 Or App 605 (2016) (De Muniz, S.J.)

In this state's appeal, the court reverses a trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress. Below, defendant argued that he had been detained without reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop that occurred when defendant was leaving a known drug house. Earlier that day, police had investigated the house and arrested the owner and searched several visitors, finding drugs. While they were waiting for a search warrant, the police saw defendant twice arrive at the house, stay briefly, and then leave. The court concluded that defendant's nervous demeanor and his past drug involvement did not amount to reasonable suspicion, however, the fact that he was seen visiting a house that was a confirmed drug house where people were arrested that day and the fact that he exhibited the same pattern of behavior of the earlier visitors did amount to reasonable suspicion.

State v. Westcott, 282 Or App 614 (2016) (Schuman, S.J.)

Per Curiam - Civil Commitment - Insufficient Evidence

The court accepts the state's concession that there was legally insufficient evidence to support appellant's civil commitment.

State v. W.C.A., 282 Or App 622 (2016) (Per Curiam)

Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency - Dependency Proceeding Not a Foster Care Placement for Purposes of ICWA

The court rejects father's challenge to a juvenile dependency determination. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's child first in 2015 and again in 2016. Father challenges the 2016 judgment, arguing that DHS failed to present expert testimony required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that custody of the child by father was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. DHS argues on appeal that because the proceeding was not a foster care placement, father was required to preserve his claim and DHS was not required to present expert testimony. The court agrees with DHS that it was not a foster care placement proceeding since the child already had been found to be under the juvenile court's jurisdiction.

DHS v. J.C.S., 282 Or App 624 (2016) (Per Curiam)

Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement

The court holds that an officer's testimony conveying a hearsay statement from the complainant that he did not know the defendant was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. Defendant was convicted of theft for taking the complainant's video poker cash credit. Defendant said that she was having an affair with the complainant and he gave the voucher to her. The complainant testified that he had seen defendant around, but otherwise didn't know her. A police officer testified that the complainant told him that he did not know the defendant. The court concludes that the officer's hearsay statement was not admissible as a prior consistent statement because the statement was not made before the complainant had a motive to fabricate and the error was not harmless.

State v. Hernandez, 282 Or App 627 (2016) (Per Curiam)