State v. Kindler

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-30-2016
  • Case #: A156143
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, S.J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Forcing defense counsel to go to conduct a spontaneous evidence suppression hearing and then to go to trial within a month unfairly prejudices the defendant.

Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s repeated motions for a continuance of a suppression hearing and the ensuing trial. Defendant was charged for crimes arising out of two different situations: a traffic stop during which police found meth in Defendant’s car and a search warrant which uncovered his possession of meth and a stolen computer. Defendant was arraigned on charges regarding the search warrant first and then one week before that trial was to begin, was arraigned for charges regarding the traffic stop. The prosecution moved to consolidate both cases for trial, to begin in one week. Despite Defendant’s counsel protesting the amount of time to prepare for trial on a new charge in one week, the trial court ordered an immediate suppression hearing and then consolidated the trials. The Court held that the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court denied Defendant’s counsel the opportunity to prepare arguments on the second case and Defendant showed prejudice against him because his counsel stated to the court that he could provide a constitutionally adequate defense. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search