State v. McMullin

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-18-2015
  • Case #: A153684
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; Flynn, J.; & De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 136.420 is not violated by out-of-court statements as long as the defendant’s state confrontational rights are met. Further, a law dealing with multiple subjects satisfies Article IV of the Oregon Constitution if it contains a “unifying principle logically connecting all provisions.”

Defendant appealed his jury conviction for ten counts of first-degree rape, two counts of first degree sodomy, and ten counts of first degree sexual abuse. During trial, Defendant objected to introduction of a video interview with one of the child victims. The trial court overruled the objection and he was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that it was error to admit the interview and also that Measure 73, which imposes increased penalties for repeat sex offenders and intoxicated drivers, violated the single-subject requirement of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution. The Court held that Defendant’s confrontational rights were not violated because the subject in the interview video also testified in court, and that Measure 73 was constitutional because it satisfied the unifying principle requirement in that all provisions were logically connected. Affirmed.

Advanced Search