A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Main Entrance

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

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...

An Objective View of the Relationship Between Immigration and Crime

by: Ryan Scott • January 27, 2017 • no comments

Article is here.

Key quote:

“Native-born Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than Central American immigrants, and recent increases in immigration occurred as crime actually fell in the US.”

The Costs of Mass Incarceration

by: Ryan Scott • January 27, 2017 • no comments

The costs referred to in the title are purely financial. But even those are huge, and likely conservative. The report comes from the Prison Policy Initiative. I haven't read it closely enough to determine if it includes the loss of tax income from inmates who would be working if they weren't incarcerated.

Probable Cause to Arrest for Trespassing

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

SCOTUS granted cert last week to a case with the following facts (taken from SCOTUSblog's summary):

The first grant came in District of Columbia v. Wesby, a case that presents important questions regarding the assessment of probable cause by police officers and qualified immunity. The case arose when police officers in Washington responded to a noise complaint about a vacant house, where they found scantily clad women and the smell of marijuana. No one seemed to know who owned the house or precisely what the occasion was, but some of the partygoers told police that they had been invited by someone named “Peaches” or “Tasty” – who was not at the party, but who admitted that she did not have the owner’s permission to use the house.
The partygoers were arrested for trespassing, but no charges were ever brought against them. The partygoers then filed a lawsuit, in which they alleged that the police lacked probable cause to arrest them because they had told police officers that they had been invited to the house and therefore did not intend to trespass.

Two pieces on criminal law worth reading

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

The first piece involves the reduction, by 50%, of the number of black males under 30 who are incarcerated since 2001. The reason won't surprise anyone who has regularly read this blog. The thing to keep in mind is that, around the country, you're seeing lower incarceration rates for young males AND lower crime rates. Keep this in mind when you hear people defend higher incarceration rates as the explanation for reduced crime.

The second is a Slate piece about Oregon prosecutors. It's brief, and it tries to cover a lot of ground. Consequently, it's a more superficial discussion than I would like, but it's a start.

"Kids Are Killing a Lot Fewer Cops These Days"

by: Ryan Scott • January 4, 2017 • no comments

Here's the story behind it. It's another example of how the greatest anti-crime measure this country ever undertook was removing lead from gasoline.

Possession with Intent to Deliver: the state's special jury instruction

by: Ryan Scott • December 21, 2016 • no comments

I wrote about this back in 2011, after the COA had approved a state's instruction on possession with intent to delivery in State v. Schwab. Here's what I wrote, edited somewhat:

[T]he challenge to the instruction was very limited and therefore the COA's holding was narrow. ("In short, the issue that defendant frames on appeal — whether a jury instruction that indicates that a person may be found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance based solely on the quantity of the substance found — is not actually properly before this court.") The Supreme Court denied review, but another strange thing happened. There was a written concurrence to the denial of review, an event I don't know if I've ever seen before. (Dissents, yes, though primarily from SCOTUS. I'm sure it's happened before, but never, for me at least, memorably.)

The concurrence first quoted the instruction at issue:

"Under Oregon law, possession with intent to deliver constitutes delivery, even where no actual transfer is shown. An attempted transfer occurs when a person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step and includes, but [is] not limited to, possession of a large amount of a controlled substance, not for personal use, but consistent, instead, with trafficking in controlled substances."

Then the concurrence said this about the instruction:

→ continue reading...

Effect on the Listener

by: Ryan Scott • December 16, 2016 • one comment

From Justice DeMuniz's concurrence in Sullivan v. Popoff:

The first issue has to do with the relevance of the so-called effect-on-the-listener statements. Every statement has an effect on the mind of those who hear it; therefore, there is always an argument to be made that an out-of-court effect-on-the-listener statement is admissible because it qualifies as "not hearsay." However, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay only if it is (a) relevant, and (b) offered to show the statement's effect upon the listener's state of mind. Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 801.01[3][d], 705 (6th ed. 2013); see, e.g., State v. West, 145 Or.App. 322, 325, 930 P.2d 858 (1996) (police officer could testify to instruction given by another officer to show the instruction's effect on defendant); see also State v. Hren, 237 Or.App. 605, 607, 241 P.3d 1168 (2010) ("Statements that are relevant to show their effect on a listener are not hearsay."). Stated another way, an out-of-court statement may be offered to show that the making of that statement had some effect on the person who heard the statement if that person's state of mind is relevant to an issue in the case. See State v. Thomas, 167 Or.App. 80, 83-84, 1 P.3d 1058 (2000) (trial court erred in excluding as hearsay witness's out-of-court statement offered to prove the effect on the defendant, one of the listeners). Not every out-of-court effect-on-the-listener statement is relevant to an issue in a case. For example, a police officer's state of mind is seldom relevant to an issue in a criminal case. Thus, when dealing with so-called "effect-on-the-listener," or state-of-mind statements, the question, "Is it relevant?" is just as important as the question, "Is it hearsay?" G. Michael Fenner, The Hearsay Rule 331-32 (3d ed. 2013). [Emphasis added.]




Next 20 Articles

_________________________

Enter your email to get notice of new articles:

________________________________________________

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...

Oregon Supreme Ct - May 4, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 8, 2017 • no comments
  • Confrontation - "Implied Consent Combined Report" Not Barred by Federal Confrontation Clause in DWS Trial
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - May 3, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • May 8, 2017 • no comments
  • Defendant Entitled to Acquittal For Failure to Perform Duties of Driver When Unaware of Accident Until Later
  • Attorney Fees – Plain Error to Impose Attorney Fees – Defendant Did Not Invite the Error
  • Search and Seizure – Police Did Not Unlawfully Trespass on Defendant’s Private Drive
  • Miranda Warnings – Warnings Were Not Rendered Inadequate by Officer’s Subsequent Statements and Defendant Knowingly and Voluntarily Waived Rights
  • Search and Seizure –Emergency Aid Exception Did Not Justify Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Home
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Erred in Imposing Restitution When Not Part of Plea Agreement
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Erred in Denying Plaintiff’s Fee Waiver Request
  • Per Curiam – Civil Commitment – Trial Court Did Not Have Authority to Commit when Prior Commitment Order Still in Place
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Imposing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam – Search Warrant Did Not Establish Nexus Between Illegal Activity and Defendant’s Trailer
  • Per Curiam – Court Cannot Review Defendant’s Claim Due to Lack of Trial Court Ruling
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - April 27, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 30, 2017 • no comments
  • Uncharged Misconduct Evidence - OEC 404(3) and 404(4) Require Traditional OEC 403 Balancing - Remand to the Trial Court is the Proper Remedy
  • Right to Self-Representation - Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law in Concluding that Defendant Had No Right to Self-Representation Mid-Trial
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 26, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 28, 2017 • no comments
  • Trial Court Did Not Err in Amending Judgment Without Resentencing Defendant
  • Civil Commitment – Insufficient Evidence that Appellant was a Danger to Himself
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Failed to Prove that Counsel’s Response to Vouching Testimony was Inadequate
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner is Presumed to Know Immigration Law and Petition Did Not Fall into Escape Clause
  • Failure to Appear Requires Proof that Defendant Knew of Court Date at Time He Failed to Appear
  • Fines and Fees – Trial Court Did Not Err in Imposing Unitary Assessment and Criminal Fine but Did Err in Imposing County Assessments
  • Juvenile Dependency – Trial Court Did Not Err in Changing Permanency Plan
  • Attempt – Sufficient Proof of Substantial Step
  • Traffic Violation – Violation for Pedestrian “Improperly Proceeding Along a Highway” Does Not Include Pedestrians Who Are Crossing
  • Confessions – Defendant’s Confession was Inadmissible Because it was Induced by Promises and Threats
  • Conviction for Improper Use of Emergency Communication System Requires Proof that Caller Knew He Was Calling for Prohibited Purpose
  • Per Curiam – State Concedes Unlawful Search and Inventory
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - April 20, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 21, 2017 • no comments
  • Interference with a Peace Officer – “Passive Resistance” is Noncooperation with an Officer that Does Not Involve Violence or Other Active Conduct
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 19, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 21, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure – Defendant was Not Seized Under Oregon Law and Police Had Reasonable Suspicion Justifying Seizure Under Federal Law
  • Search and Seizure – Defendant Did Not Have a Privacy Interest in a BAC Test Conducted for Medical Treatment
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Relief Warranted When Trial Counsel Failed to Call Exculpatory Witness
  • Second-Degree Escape - Insufficient Proof of Escape When Defendant in Custody on Probation Violation - Courtroom was Correctional Facility for Purposes of Escape
  • Search and Seizure – Inventory of Defendant’s Bag was Lawful – Plain Error Imposing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam – PCR Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Petition Under ORCP 21 A(3)
  • Per Curiam – PCR Court Not Required to Respond to Petitioner’s Pro Se Claims
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 12, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 14, 2017 • no comments
  • Defendant Was Not Entitled to Grand Jury Notes – Court Will Not Exercise Discretion to Correct Sentencing Error
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Failed to Meet Burden to Show Evidence Would Be Admissible
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Successive Petition is Procedurally Barred
  • Evidence – Prior Acts Admissible to Prove Hostile Motive
  • Restitution – No Good Cause for Delaying Restitution Hearing 203 Days After Judgment
  • Evidence – Any Error in Admitting Curative Testimony was Harmless
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Remand Required on Shackling Claim – Petitioner Not Entitled to Subpoena Victim
  • Search and Seizure – Extension of Stop Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of DUII
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 5, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 7, 2017 • no comments
  • No Reversible Error in Excluding Evidence of Defendant’s Character – Error in Applying Departure Factors
  • Restitution – Remand Required to Apply Ramos
  • Per Curiam – Reversal Required when No Signed Jury Waiver
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Attorney Fee Award
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Failing to Merge Guilty Verdicts
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Sentence that Exceeded the Statutory Maximum
  • Per Curiam – Reversing “Mandatory State Amt”
  • Per Curiam – Reversing “Mandatory State Amt”
  • Per Curiam – Juvenile Dependency – Termination of Parental Rights was Proper
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Erred in Failing to Conduct OEC 403 Balancing Required
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - March 30, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 31, 2017 • no comments
  • Eyewitness ID - Defendant Entitled to Remand for Lawson/James Hearing
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 29, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 31, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure - Police Lacked Reasonable Suspicion to Extend Traffic Stop
  • Challenges to Uncharged Sexual Abuse Unpreserved and Restitution Award Supported by the Record
  • DNA Testing - Defendant Did Not Make a Prima Facie Showing of Actual Innocence
  • Juvenile Dependency - No Error in Maintaining Permanency Plan of Reunification
  • Per Curiam - OEC 403 Balancing Challenge is Unpreserved
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 22, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 24, 2017 • no comments
  • Post-Conviction Relief - No Appeal from Dismissal as Meritless Petition
  • Search and Seizure - Police Lacked Reasonable Suspicion - Record Not Sufficient to Address State's Alternative Basis
  • Fines and Fees - Trial Court Improperly Imposed Compensatory Fine
  • Juvenile Dependency - Affirming Jurisdiction over Child Due to Domestic Violence in the Home
  • Search and Seizure - Search Warrant Affidavit Established Probable Cause for Search of RV
  • Per Curiam - Search and Seizure - Search Under Automobile Exception Justified
  • Per Curiam - Court Erred in Imposing Fine on Merged Count
  • Per Curiam - Civil Commitment Court Plainly Erred in Failing to Advise of Right to Subpoena
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 15, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 17, 2017 • no comments
  • Indictments - Any Error in Amending Indictment was Harmless
  • FAPA Orders - Insufficient Evidence that Respondent Threatened Harm to Petitioner
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Appellate Counsel was Not Ineffective for Failing to Raise Claim
  • Civil Commitment - Evidence Sufficient to Find that Appellant Continued to Be a Danger to Herself
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Trial Counsel Not Ineffective for Failing to Argue for Application of Shift-to-I Rule
  • Sentencing - Trial Court Erred in Imposing Consecutive Sentences for Robbery and UUV
→ read the full summaries...

________________________________________________

j