State v. Valdez

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-01-2017
  • Case #: A156707
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; DeHoog, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When the Court relies on misunderstandings of facts in deciding a case, the Court may otherwise adhere to its previous ruling if additional facts support its ultimate holding.

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the opinion in State v. Valdez, 283 Or App 77 (2016). In the 2016 opinion, Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of first-degree rape. He assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on one count of first-degree rape because Defendant argued the State had not presented sufficient evidence that Defendant raped the victim twice. In the 2016 opinion, the Court relied on the victim's testimony, which the Court misunderstood to relate to penile penetration. Despite that misunderstanding, the Court held that additional testimony from the victim and other witnesses would allow a trier of fact to find that Defendant committed two counts of first-degree rape. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. 

Advanced Search