A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Main Entrance

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

Dog sniff in legal MJ state

by: Ryan Scott • July 16, 2017 • no comments

A reminder to Oregon defense lawyers

by: Ryan Scott • July 13, 2017 • no comments

I am of the opinion that the standard jury instructions for most theories of Assault II, some theories of Assault I, APSO, Theft-by-Taking and Criminal Mischief I and II are wrong. If you want supplemental jury instructions that would give you an additional defense and/or give you an issue for appeal, please contact me directly. If you know someone who is taking one of these cases to trial, please spread the word.

Did a recent merger opinion render some ID Thefts unconstitutional?

by: Ryan Scott • July 13, 2017 • no comments

Maybe yes.  First, a quick primer on vertical proportionality.  From State v. Koch:

On appeal, defendant argues that his sentences violate the proportionality requirement of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. He asserts that, if he had committed Level 4 forgeries, the maximum durational departure sentence with a "B" criminal history score would have been 18 months in prison. Article I, section 16, prohibits the imposition of a sentence for a lesser offense that is greater than that available for a more serious offense. State v. Turner, 296 Or. 451, 456, 676 P.2d 873 (1984); Merrill v. Gladden, 216 Or. 460, 464, 337 P.2d 774 (1959); Cannon v. Gladden, 203 Or. 629, 631-33, 281 P.2d 233 (1955).

Second, State v. Haddon, which essentially held that ID Theft (a felony) can be a lesser-included of Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card (misdemeanor).

In sum, proof of the elements of fraudulent use of a credit card proves the elements of the offense of identity theft, in the forms in which the offenses were alleged in this case. At least as is alleged here, identity theft does not require proof of an element that is not already included in fraudulent use of a credit card.

In other words, some ID Theft charges, by being charged as felonies, will violate Article I, section 16, because they carry a greater sentence than misdemeanors that describe more serious behavior.

The Haddon court found that the FUCC (the greater offense, measured by elements, but the lesser offense measured by crime seriousness) merged into ID Theft (the reverse). Even if that is the correct result in a merger analysis, that holding wouldn't solve the proportionality problem under the Oregon Constitution.  The state can also defeat the merger argument by not charging FUCC, but that too would not have an impact on the proportionality challenge.

This argument will be limited to ID Thefts that fall into the Haddon category, but if they do, it's a powerful and fun argument to make.  I would ask for either dismissal of the ID Theft or, failing that, immediate reduction to a misdemeanor. Can you raise it pre-trial? Probably not. Whether you'd want to alert the prosecutor to the issue as a part of negotiations will likely depend on how easy a problem it would be for them to fix.

Did Simonov overrule Barnes?

by: Ryan Scott • June 25, 2017 • no comments

This is a long blog post, but please read before you go to trial on an assault II based on serious physical injury, an assault I based on knowingly causing serious physical injury to a child, or assault on a public safety officer. It will tell you everything you need to know about why the standard jury instructions for those crimes are wrong.

→ continue reading...

Is Engen good law anymore?

by: Ryan Scott • June 23, 2017 • no comments

In State v. Engen, the Court of Appeals held that while a defendant must knowingly possess a controlled substance, he didn't need to know the exact nature of the controlled substance.  That is, a defendant charged with possession of cocaine couldn't get an acquittal by arguing he thought it was meth.

But back then, a defendant wouldn't have been charged with specifically possessing cocaine.  He was charged with possessing a schedule II controlled substance.  The statute didn't distinguish between cocaine and methamphetamine. Now, a defendant is usually charged with expressly possessing cocaine in most cases, though a separate general statute based on drug categories still exists.

The earlier failure to distinguish different controlled substances was part of the analysis in Engen:

Given the historical context of the 1977 legislation—the lack of differentiation among types of controlled substances and the historic lack of an explicit mental state requirement pertaining to the specific type of controlled substance possessed—it seems unlikely that the 1977 legislature intended to impose such a requirement.

As I mentioned, at least some of the drug statutes make those distinction now.  Let's assume the charge is possession of cocaine.  The mental state is knowingly.  The conduct -- using a Simonov analysis -- is possession of cocaine.  I don't think a person can be guilty under that statute of possessing cocaine if they thought they possessed methamphetamine.

New Hampshire accidentally makes pregnancy a defense to murder

by: Ryan Scott • June 23, 2017 • no comments
The story is here.

There is a larger point to be made about sloppy legislative drafting (as well as other points not suited to this blog) but I'll save those for another time.

Another example demonstrating that incarceration is often not based on community safety

by: Ryan Scott • May 31, 2017 • no comments

If prisoner A is in custody, serving a prison sentence, because it is necessary to keep the community safe, then the fact that there is a job shortage would not impact that conclusion, would it?

But if a job shortage is a basis for releasing a prisoner, perhaps community safety isn't the issue. And if community safety isn't the issue, then aren't there a number of ways to punish a person that are more effective and cheaper than incarceration?

Why do I bring this up? Because of this story in the Wall Street Journal: To Fill Summer Jobs, Maine Gov. Releases Non-Violent Prisoners.

What is responsible for the fall in drunk driving since the early '80s?

by: Ryan Scott • May 22, 2017 • no comments

Drunk driving fatalities have fallen dramatically since the early '80s. They continued to fall since the mid-90s, but that drop is less significant because non-DUII auto fatalities have fallen the same amount, suggesting that improvements in auto safety (which protect the drunk and sober alike) account for most if not all of the drop in the last two decades.

Still, if you go back to the early '80s, the decline of drunk driving fatalities has been an extraordinary success story. Is it because of tougher laws? Social stigma? Demographics? Change is alcohol consumption patterns?

You might find an answer here.

Would raising most speed limits make roads safer?

by: Ryan Scott • May 13, 2017 • no comments

Discussion here.

Non-Oregon Case Law on "No Trespassing" Signs and the 4th Amendment

by: Ryan Scott • May 13, 2017 • no comments

The Tennessee Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, went over a large body of case law on whether a "No Trespassing" sign defeats the implicit license of police to walk up to your front door. A discussion of their opinion is here.

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently discussed the issue in St v. Wilson.

New Regarding Historical Cell-Site Data (SW or Subpoena?)

by: Ryan Scott • May 13, 2017 • no comments

The US Supreme Court is considering whether to take cases where the issue is whether a search warrant or a mere subpoena is necessary to obtain historical cell-site data.

Links to the multiple petitions for cert can be found here.

Discussion here.

And an argument for revisiting the third-party doctrine is here. As previously noted, the Oregon Constitution provides much greater protection to records held by third-parties, per State v. Ghim. Having said that, the exact parameters of that protection will continue to be unknown until defense attorneys start preserving the issues.


The Standard Theft-by-Taking Jury Instruction is Wrong

by: Ryan Scott • May 10, 2017 • no comments

In State v. Simonov, the Oregon Supreme Court lays out the law on applying which mental states to which elements.  The charge was UUV, but it's a great place to start if you ever have any questions about mental states and material elements.  

In his opinion, Justice Brewer points out that the "knowing" mental state is the lowest applicable mental state that can be applied to conduct.  When it comes to results and circumstances, the lowest applicable mental state is criminal negligence.  He points out that if a crime is in the criminal code, and no mental state is explicitly applied to a particular element, then the lowest possible mental state applies, which, in the case of a conduct element, is "knowingly" and in the case of a circumstance element is "negligently."

He briefly uses theft to highlight the difference between conduct and circumstance, specifically the fact that value of an item is a circumstance.

The theft statutes provide an example of the role of circumstance elements in a criminal offense. “Theft” in any degree is defined by ORS 164.015, which describes the prohibited conduct (the taking of property) and the applicable mental state (intent to deprive another of property). The prohibited conduct for theft in any degree is the taking of another’s property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. Id. A person commits first-degree theft when the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015, and the value of the property is $1,000 or more. ORS 164.055. If the value of the property is $100 or more and less than $1,000, the person commits second-degree theft, and if the value of the property is less than $100, the person commits third-degree theft. ORS 164.045 (second-degree theft); ORS 164.043 (third-degree theft).

But what he says next is what's most important.  He cites St v Jones, a COA case (authored by then-Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, David Brewer) that specifically involves whether one should apply a knowing mental state to the value of items stolen.  And he summarizes Jones as follows:

→ continue reading...

Top Ten Observations about Defense Lawyers

by: Ryan Scott • March 31, 2017 • no comments

Kopf's list begins:

10. Criminal defense lawyers are at great risk of becoming drunken bastards—the stress is beyond description.

9. Being a good criminal defense lawyer requires sincerity whereas being a great criminal defense lawyer requires the ability to fake it.

8. When it comes to convincing a client to accept a guilty plea because it is in the manifest best interests of the client, a criminal defense lawyer must become a client whisperer.

7. When it comes to convincing a client to reject a plea offer and take the case to a jury, a criminal defense lawyer (regardless of gender) must possess balls of steel.

6. Real criminal defense lawyers don’t hate prosecutors, but they don’t trust them either.

The rest of the list gets more interesting.

→ continue reading...

Race, Crime, Lead: More on the Impact of Banning Leaded Gasoline

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • one comment

Kevin Drum's post is here, highlighting two studies. Very interesting to show how leaded gasoline -- and the subsequent ban on leaded gasoline -- impacts incarceration and crime as categorized by the race of the defendant.

Does Retroactive Application of SO Registry Laws Violate Ex Post Facto?

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • no comments

You may have thought this issue was dead, but apparently it has some life. Per SCOTUSblog, SCOTUS has invited the solicitor general to weigh in on the petition for cert in Snyder v. Doe, which raises the question whether retroactive application of sex-offender-registry laws violates ex post facto clause.

That doesn't mean the justices will take the case, but at least one justice is considering doing so. I wouldn't expect a decision on whether to grant cert until the fall.

SW to Seize and Search a Car's Black Box

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • no comments

I've been waiting to have a case -- almost certainly a vehicular manslaughter or similar -- in which to raise this issue. Hasn't happened yet. But here's an appellate opinion where it was raised. Key quote:

The state challenges an order granting appellee Charles Worsham’s motion to suppress. Without a warrant, the police downloaded data from the “event data recorder” or “black box” located in Worsham’s impounded vehicle. We affirm, concluding there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information retained by an event data recorder and downloading that information without a warrant from an impounded car in the absence of exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.

Here is Orin Kerr's take on the issue.


Historical Cell-Site Data: subpoena or search warrant?

by: Ryan Scott • March 22, 2017 • no comments

You can see a 9th Circuit oral argument on the issue here.

However, keep in mind, the Oregon Constitution may be far more favorable. See State v. Ghim for Oregon's take on the third-party doctrine.

Juvenile Arrest Rates Since 1980

by: Ryan Scott • March 6, 2017 • no comments

I highly recommend you look at this chart via Kevin Drum.

Mr. Drum writes:

Since 1996, arrests of juveniles have fallen by two-thirds. Arrests for violent crimes have fallen by more than two-thirds. Bottom line: Kids today are way better behaved and way less scary than they were in the 90s. One of these days we ought to start acting like we know this.

Child Porn Sentencing

by: Ryan Scott • March 5, 2017 • no comments

The Oregon Supreme Court has granted review to a case involving child porn sentencing. The issue is this: how many different criminal episodes are there when multiple images are found during a single search, but those images were obtained on different dates?

I won't reiterate the arguments here, but it's my case, so if anyone wants the briefs after they're filed, let me know.

If the defense wins, the impact could be that a defendant who is an "I" would stay an "I" for all counts. While much better than being an "A" after just a few counts, are there any other limitations that could dramatically shorten the sentence?

Yes. If the state can't prove separate victims, the 200% rule would kick in, and the defendant's likely sentence would be no more than 36 months.

But what if the images all involve separate children? My argument -- which I have written about before -- is that the burden is on the state to show that the people depicted in the images are still alive at the time of downloading by the defendant, because if they aren't, they are beyond all harm, and thus cannot be victims (in the same way you can't libel the dead).

The state's response, shared by some defense attorneys, is that when you download the images ten, twenty or even a hundred years later, you -- as a consumer of these images -- are the reason these images were created in the first place, thus you are complicit in the original abuse. Consequently, it is the harm from the original abuse that makes the children "victims" for all eternity, even if the porn people look at five hundred years from now is the same porn that exists today.

I think this is wrong because I don't think the law recognizes retroactivity in this type of culpability. Space/time certainly doesn't. But there is another key reason, and when I say it, you're going to be shocked, but read on, and you'll see I'm not promoting an argument that only a psychopath would make.

→ continue reading...

The Science on Marijuana Legalization's Impact on Opioid Addiction

by: Ryan Scott • February 28, 2017 • one comment

Judge Rejects Warrant Provision On Compelling Thumbprint to Unlock Phone

by: Ryan Scott • February 24, 2017 • no comments

Details here.

Where Can You Get Crime Statistics?

by: Ryan Scott • February 24, 2017 • no comments

For US crime statistics, go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. This is a good place to start. As Kevin Drum states, "Their data delivery tool provides a lot of flexibility, allowing you to get data for specific crimes, specific localities, and specific time periods. Unfortunately, it's usually two years behind the latest release, so you have to wade through the most recent PDF reports if you want current data. If you need a complete series, start with the data tool and then fill in the most recent couple of years by hand from the relevant reports."

More proof that the major reason for the drop in violent crime is. . . .

by: Ryan Scott • February 17, 2017 • no comments

. . . . unleaded gasoline. Or more precisely, the phasing out of leaded gasoline in the US in the 1970s. You can easily find previous articles and evidence of this around the internet. Perhaps the most compelling evidence is that the drop in violence is entirely predictable based on when and how quickly leaded gasoline was phased out, regardless of the country. Here is the evidence as it relates to Britain, which phased out leaded gasoline much later than occurred in the US but, once it did so, did so much more quickly.

This isn't rocket science. We know what lead does to the brain, in terms of intellectual development and impulse control. That getting it out of the environment would have long term benefits for the children who grew up after lead was reduced or eliminated in their neighborhoods is entirely predictable and born out by the evidence.

Things You Really Need to Know About Special Jury Instructions

by: Ryan Scott • February 16, 2017 • no comments

Today, the Oregon Supreme Court came out with an opinion in State v. Morgan. It's a good defense opinion but not a good one for this particular defendant.

The most significant holding is that in a robbery in the second degree based on "aided by another person actually present," the "other person" must actually intend to aid the principal in the commission of the robbery. It can't be inadvertent assistance.

But there are a few things from the opinion that are very much worth highlighting.

→ continue reading...

Is Your Smart TV Spying on You? And How This Relates to the Most Important Suppression Opinion of the Year

by: Ryan Scott • February 7, 2017 • no comments

The Fourth Amendment blog writes about the story here.

The blog post asks the question: "So, if this is third party data, is it subject to mere subpoena and not a search warrant?"

And the answer is:

→ continue reading...



Next 20 Articles

_________________________

Enter your email to get notice of new articles:

________________________________________________

Oregon Appellate Ct - July 19, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • July 23, 2017 • no comments
  • Defendant Waived Right to Counsel – Defendant’s Demurrer Should Have Been Allowed
  • Indictments – Demurrer Should Have Been Allowed Because No Basis for Joinder Was Alleged
  • Sufficient Evidence that Defendant Went to Premises Where Minors Regularly Congregate
  • Evidence – In Fraud Case, Evidence that Defendant Made Payments to Victims Was Improperly Excluded
  • Search and Seizure – Officer Reasonably Concluded that Entry to Defendant’s Property was Necessary to Render Emergency Aid to Cattle
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - July 13, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • July 14, 2017 • no comments
  • State Not Permitted to Prosecute Defendant for Murder when Defendant Pleaded Guilty to Assault and Plea Agreement was Silent as to Risk of Additional Prosecution
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - July 12, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • July 14, 2017 • no comments
  • DUII – Defendant’s Refusal to Consent to Breath Test Admissible in DUII Prosecution
  • Evidence – Trial Court Admitted Text Messages as Adoptive Admissions
  • OEC 403 – Granting Reconsideration to Remand to Trial Court to Conduct Balancing
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - July 6, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • July 9, 2017 • no comments
  • Scientific Evidence – Officer’s Conclusion that Defendant Passed or Failed Field Sobriety Test is Scientific Testimony Requiring Adequate Foundation
  • Expert Testimony – Trial Court Erroneously Excluded General Testimony on False Memory – Offer of Proof was Sufficient for Review
  • Sentencing – Under ORS 137.717, Court Lacked Authority to Impose Multiple Downward Departure Sentences but Court had Discretion to Choose Which Count to Depart
  • Search and Seizure – Officer’s Belief that Defendant Possessed Drugs was Not Objectively Reasonable
  • Attorney Fees – Defendant’s General Statement that He May Be Able to Work Insufficient to Support Attorney Fee Award
  • Search and Seizure – Traffic Stop Was Valid under Vehicle Code
  • Juvenile Dependency – Court Violated Interstate Compact by Appointing Guardian in California
  • Sentencing – Trial Court Plainly Violated 200 Percent Rule for Consecutive Sentences
  • Inmate Litigation – Trial Court Did Not Err in Revoking the Waiver of Plaintiff’s Filing Fees
  • Interference with Peace Officer – On Reconsideration Reversing Conviction Because Defendant was Engaged in Passive Resistance
  • Self-Representation – Trial Court Erred in Failing to Allow Defendant to Represent Himself
  • Per Curiam – Merger – Sex Abuse and Sodomy Verdicts Based on Same Acts but Different Theories Should Merge
  • Per Curiam – Merger – Individual Thefts Should Merge into Aggravated Theft
  • Per Curiam – Civil Commitment – Appellant’s Shackling Argument is Unpreserved
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - June 29, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 30, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure – Remanding to Determine as Factual Matter Scope of Defendant’s Consent
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 28, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 30, 2017 • no comments
  • Trial Court Properly Denied Demurrer as Untimely – Trial Court Properly Imposed Compensatory Fine
  • Evidence Sufficient to Support Conviction for Initiating False Report
  • Juvenile Dependency – Mother’s Admission Was Sufficient to Support Jurisdiction
  • Per Curiam - Post-Conviction Relief – Remanding for Reconsideration of Poston Issue
  • Per Curiam – Civil Commitment – Insufficient Evidence to Support Commitment
  • Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency – Court Erred in Appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Mother
  • Per Curiam - Appeal and Review – Defendant May Not Appeal from Guilty Plea
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - June 22, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 26, 2017 • no comments
  • Sentencing - Sentence Was Not Vindictive When Overall Sentence was Shorter
  • Sentencing – Trial Court Erred in Failing to Consider Whether Defendant’s Intellectual Disability Rendered Measure 11 Sentence Unconstitutional
  • Search and Seizure – Although WA Officer Lacked Authority to Stop Defendant, Evidence Was Constitutionally Obtained
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 21, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 26, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure – Consent to Search was Voluntary – Defendant was Not Seized
  • Sufficiency of Evidence - Record was Insufficient to Present Substantial Pain Theory of Assault to Jury
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - June 15, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 19, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure - Scope of Consent is Determined by Defendant's Actual Intent
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 14, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 19, 2017 • no comments
  • Evidence was Insufficient to Convict Defendant of Reckless Endangerment
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner’s Successive Petition Did Not Fall Within Escape Clause
  • Evidence – Record Did Not Reveal that Trial Court Conducted OEC 403 Balancing and Limited Remand Required
  • Failure to Appear - Sufficient Evidence that Defendant was Released from Custody – Failure to Redact Misdemeanor Charges from Release Agreement was Harmless Error
  • Search and Seizure – State Proved Exigent Circumstances Justified Warrantless Entry into Home
  • Evidence was Sufficient to Convict Defendant of Failure to Perform Duties of Driver
  • Sentencing – Merger Required for Identity Theft and Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card
  • Right to Counsel – Defendant’s Article I, Section 11, Rights Were Violated by Cellmate Interrogation
  • Court Cannot Review Exclusion of Expert Testimony Due to Insufficient Offer of Proof
  • Search and Seizure – Defendant was Stopped without Reasonable Suspicion
  • Per Curiam - Attorney Fees – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Imposing Fees
  • Per Curiam - Civil Commitment – Dismissal Warranted When Appellant Held for More Than Five Days Without Hearing
  • Per Curiam - Habeas Corpus – Plaintiff Not Precluded from Re-Raising Claims
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 7, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 9, 2017 • no comments
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Was Not Prejudiced by Trial Counsel’s Deficient Performance
  • Juvenile Dependency – Mother Was Permitted to Present New Evidence at Judicial Rehearing
  • Speedy Trial – Defendant was Not Prejudiced by Pretrial Delay – Defendant Waived Statute of Limitations Defense
  • Sentencing – Trial Court Erred in Imposing Consecutive Sentences for Attempted Murder and First-Degree Assault
  • Per Curiam – Sentencing – Not Plain Error to Impose Lengthy Non-Life Sentence on Juvenile
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 1, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • June 2, 2017 • no comments
  • Charging Instruments – Upholding on Reconsideration Earlier Opinion Requiring State to Allege Basis of Joinder
  • DUII – Trial Court Did Not Err in Instructing the Jury on Alternative Theories of DUII
  • Evidence – Admission of Judgment of Conviction Over Defendant’s Stipulation was Prejudicial
  • Evidence – Portion of Transcript Admissible on Alternative Hearsay Exception
  • Per Curiam – Reversing “Mandatory State Amt” but Upholding Imposition of Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Imposition of DUII Conviction Fee
  • Per Curiam – Reversal for Lack of Written Jury Waiver
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Imposed Unlawful Post-Prison Supervision Sentence
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Imposing Extradition Fees
  • Per Curiam – Civil Commitment – Insufficient Evidence to Support Finding of Dangerousness
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - May 24, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 26, 2017 • no comments
  • Telephonic Harassment Requires Proof that Caller Caused Phone to Make Audible Sound
  • Sentencing – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Imposing Two 60-Month Firearm Minimums but Defendant was Not Prejudiced by Error
  • Evidence – Defendant’s Prior Convictions Were Inadmissible
  • Juvenile Dependency – Permanency Judgment Supported by Sufficient Evidence
  • Restitution – Wildlife Valuation Statute Did Not Establish Economic Damages
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency – Remanding for Entry of Judgment on Other Jurisdictional Grounds
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - May 17, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 22, 2017 • no comments
  • Kidnapping – Trial Court Did Not Plainly Err in Entering Conviction for Kidnapping
  • Sentencing – Trial Court Erred in Failing to Merge Guilty Verdicts and Remand for Resentencing is Required
  • Post-Conviction Relief – PCR Court Applied Incorrect Brady Standard and Remand Required
  • Post-Conviction Relief – PCR Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Successive Petition
  • Evidence – Interpreter’s Translation of Defendant’s Confession was Inadmissible Hearsay
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Object to Trial Court’s Improper Comments
  • Restraining Orders – Sufficient Evidence in Record to Support FAPA Order
  • Stalking Protective Orders – Insufficient Evidence to Support SPO
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - May 10, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 12, 2017 • no comments
  • Miranda Warnings Were Not Required During Traffic Stop and DUII Investigation
  • Defendant Could Not Invoke Right to Counsel in Non-Compelling Circumstances
  • Defendant Entitled to Acquittal on Manufacture of a Destructive Device
  • Termination of Parental Rights – Juvenile Court Erred in Excluding Evidence but Termination was Proper
  • Computer Crime – Providing False Info to Banks Not Sufficient Proof of “Use” of a Computer
  • Post-Conviction Relief – PCR Court Did Not Err in Denying Petitioner’s Claim
  • Juvenile Dependency – Judgments Not Appealable Because of Lack of Adverse Affect
  • Juvenile Dependency – Juvenile Court Did Not Err in Changing Permanency Plan
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Attached Sufficient Support of PCR Claim
  • Per Curiam - Stalking – State Concedes Communications Were Not Contacts
  • Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency – Jurisdictional Judgment Affirmed but Two Grounds Reversed
  • Per Curiam – Claim of Error is Unreviewable
→ read the full summaries...

________________________________________________

j