Oregon Supreme Court - September 20, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • September 25, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> SENTENCING - Separate criminal episodes </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' SENTENCING - Separate criminal episodes If double-jeopardy p...") |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The state argued that defendant downloaded the images on multiple dates. In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court explained the jury did not specify whether it based its verdict on a a possession theory or a downloading theory. The sentencing court could not make that finding. | The state argued that defendant downloaded the images on multiple dates. In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court explained the jury did not specify whether it based its verdict on a a possession theory or a downloading theory. The sentencing court could not make that finding. | ||
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/6847/download#page=1&zoom=auto | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/6847/download#page=1&zoom=auto ''State v. Dulfu''] 363 Or 647 (September 20, 2018) (Duncan) (Lane County County, McAlpin) |
| − | + | ||
{{wl-publish: 2018-09-25 08:01:42 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | {{wl-publish: 2018-09-25 08:01:42 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:02, September 26, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCING - Separate criminal episodes If double-jeopardy principles require that multiple crimes be tried together, then those crimes are necessarily part of the same criminal episode, and none increase the defendant’s criminal history for the others. Remanded for resentencing.
Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of encouraging child sexual abuse based on the presence of multiple images saved on his hard drive. The Supreme Court reasoned that, the defendant was prosecuted for the possession of multiple things possessed at the same time, and that constituted a single criminal episode.
The state argued that defendant downloaded the images on multiple dates. In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court explained the jury did not specify whether it based its verdict on a a possession theory or a downloading theory. The sentencing court could not make that finding.
State v. Dulfu 363 Or 647 (September 20, 2018) (Duncan) (Lane County County, McAlpin)
