State v. Ipsen

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-25-2017
  • Case #: A157904
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; DeVore, PJ; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Issue preclusion is permissible in a criminal proceeding when: (1) the issue is identical to that in a prior proceeding; (2) that issue was litigated and was "essential to a final decision on the merits;" (3) the precluded party had “a full and fair opportunity to be heard;” (4) the precluded party was party to-, or "in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding;" and (5) the court will give preclusive effect to the prior proceeding. State v. Gipson, 234 Or App 316, 320-321 (2010).

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for 25 counts of second-degree invasion of privacy, ORS 163.700. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's conclusion "that issue preclusion barred him from litigating his motion to suppress." On appeal, Defendant argued that issue preclusion infringed on his right to a jury trial, and that issue preclusion was inapplicable because the Washington County court’s denial of the motion was not “essential to a final decision on the merits.” In response, State argued that there was no error because the motion was identical to that in the Washington County case, which was essential to the outcome of that trial. Additionally, preclusion of the motion to suppress didn’t infringe on Defendant's right to a jury trial because "it present[ed] a pure legal question." Issue preclusion is permissible in a criminal proceeding when: (1) the issue is identical to that in a prior proceeding; (2) that issue was litigated and was "essential to a final decision on the merits;" (3) the precluded party had “a full and fair opportunity to be heard;” (4) the precluded party was party to-, or "in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding;" and (5) the court will give preclusive effect to the prior proceeding. State v. Gipson, 234 Or App 316, 320-321 (2010). The Court of Appeals determined that the lower court didn’t err, because the Washington County court’s denial of Defendant’s motion was “essential to the final decision on the merits” as it allowed for the admission of key evidence. Affirmed. 

 

Advanced Search