Smith v. Mills

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 01-22-2015
  • Case #: A145677
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, C.J., for the court; Duncan, P.J.; & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

There is no Oregon statutory entitlement (under ORS 144.315, ORS 183.413, and ORS 183.445), or Constitutional entitlement (under Oregon Constitution Article 1, section 10, or the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) to subpoena witnesses for parole consideration hearings.

Smith appealed a dismissal of his motion for issuance of an order to show cause. Smith subpoenaed two witnesses to his parole consideration hearing who subsequently did not appear. Smith contended that he was legally entitled to subpoena witnesses under Oregon statutory law, the Oregon Constitution, and the United States Constitution. This Court determined that there is no constitutional or statutory entitlement to subpoena witnesses for parole consideration hearings as outlined in the companion caseSmith v. Board of Parole, 268 Or App 457, ___ P3d ___ (2015). AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search