Killian Dunkeson

Oregon Supreme Court (6 summaries)

State v. Nichols

Under Article I, section 12, if a suspect unequivocally invokes his or her right against compelled self-incrimination during a custodial interrogation, then police must honor that request and stop the interrogation. The statement is sufficient if a reasonable officer would understand the statement to be an invocation of the rights against self-incrimination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Hudman

Evidence is admissible under OEC 404(3) if it is relevant for a purpose other than to prove the person’s disposition or propensity to commit particular acts and that the person had acted in conformity with that disposition or propensity. To determine whether other-act evidence is relevant to show that a defendant engaged in the charged criminal conduct with the requisite intent, the trial court must consider the five factors set out in Johns, including whether “the physical elements of the [other] act and the [charged] act are similar.” If the answer to any of the five Johns questions is negative, then the evidence is not admissible as evidence of intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Althouse

Under ORS 138.222(2)(a), any presumptive sentence prescribed by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission may not be reviewed on direct appeal. In reviewing a challenge to a presumptive sentence under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution courts considers three factors: (1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime, (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes, and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Baker v. Croslin

A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, holding a permit from the commission, or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the licensee, permittee, or social host served alcohol to the patron while visibly intoxicated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Sines

Privacy interests protected by Article I, section 9, “is an interest against the state,” and “is not an interest against private parties.” Article I, section 9, is a restriction on government searches and seizures, not private ones.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Scott v. Dept. of Rev

A party dissatisfied with a Magistrate Division decision may appeal by filing a complaint in the Regular Division of the Tax Court within 60 days after the date of entry of the written decision. ORS 305.501(5)(a). ORS 305.419(1) specifies that a condition precedent for appealing a tax decision is the payment of the tax assessed, and all penalties and interest due, on or before the filing of the complaint. However, ORS 305.419(3) provides an alternative to that condition, if the taxpayer establishes that payment of the taxes would be an undue hardship.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (73 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. C. M.

For the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, a child can sleep through episodes of domestic violence and still be "exposed" to it if no one shields or protects the child from the activity unfolding around it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Kennedy

The “officer safety” exception allows officers to take reasonable steps to protect themselves or others if there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the citizen may pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Jackson v. Franke

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the test for determining whether a petitioner has been denied adequate assistance of counsel is two-pronged: (1) the petitioner must show that his or her counsel performed inadequately; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate that he or she was prejudiced because of counsel’s error. Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 661-62, 342 P3d 70 (2015); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 686 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Blackburn

Under ORS 33.096, a court may summarily impose a sanction upon a person who commits contempt of court "in the immediate view and presence of the court," including a person present via telephone.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Niday

Under the Uniform Commercial Code “the current holder of a promissory note, indorsed in a blank, gives [the current holder] the right to enforce the note.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Davis

“Dwelling” means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present. A defendant’s unlawful habitation in a building is insufficient to identify that building as a “dwelling.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. S. R. J

Whether evidence of danger is legally sufficient is a matter of law. To commit someone on the basis that a person is dangerous to self, the clear and convincing evidence must show that the threatened harm to self must involve “serious” and “actual” physical harm in the “near term.” Similarly, to permit commitment on the basis that a person is dangerous to others, the state must establish “that actual future violence is highly likely.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Martin v. Lane County

Under ORS 197.825(1), LUBA is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to review land use decisions. Under ORS 197.015(10)(a), a land use decision is defined as a final determination made by a local government that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of the goals, a comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Belle

Under ORS 136.425(1), statements made while under the influence of threats, whether before or after a Miranda warning are not admissible. Simply reading a defendant their Miranda rights may alone not be enough to dispel the coercive effect of a pre-Miranda threat.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hoddenpyl v. Fiskum

Under ORCP 71 B(1), excusable neglect is grounds for setting aside default judgments when the defendant, or a representative, takes reasonable steps to respond to the complaint, even if the process breaks down later because of a subordinate's mistake.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Johnson

Under State v. Turnidge, evidence of prior acts or threats presented to show hostile motive or intent does not need to be similar in type and physical characteristic to the conduct giving rise to the convictions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Mid-Valley Resources v. Foxglove Properties

To prevail on a claim of implied public dedication, the proponent must prove that the grantor intended “to devote his property to a public use, and this intention must be clearly and unequivocally manifested by his acts.” The party seeking to establish adverse possession of an easement must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the “use of the property was actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile for a 10-year period, and that the use was inconsistent with the use of the easement by the owners of the dominant estate.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Jenkins

Merger is governed by ORS 161.067, which precludes merger when the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not; ORS 161.067(2) precludes merger when the same conduct or criminal episode violates only one statutory provision, but involves two or more victims; and ORS 161.067(3) precludes merger when the same conduct or criminal episode violates only one statutory provision and involves only one victim, but the violations are separated by a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Anderson

ORS 811.706 does not make a distinction between owners and insurers of property damaged in the hit and run for the purposes of ordering restitution payments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Stonecrest Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene

An incidental beneficiary has no standing to enforce bond. The Court will look at the intent of the parties to determine whether a nonparty is an incidental beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Yankee v. Oregon Medical Board

OAR 137-003-0670(2) provides that if a party fails to appear at a hearing and the agency finds that the party had good cause for the failing to appear, then the agency may not issue a final order by default. If the reasons for the party’s failure to appear are in dispute, the agency shall schedule a hearing on the reasons for the party’s failure to appear.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Northwest Public Communications Council v. Qwest

A local exchange carrier “who seeks to rely on the waiver granted in the instant Order must reimburse its customers or provide credit from April 15, 1997 in situations where the newly tariffed rates, when effective, are lower than the existing tariffed rates.” Judicial estoppel is a common law equitable principle that applies to prevent a litigant who has benefitted from a position taken in an earlier judicial proceeding from taking an inconsistent position in a later proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

May Trucking Co. v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.047, an exemption from “employment” exists (1) when a person leases “their equipment” to a for-hire carrier; (2) performs transportation services for the for-hire carrier; and (3) personally operates, furnishes and maintains the equipment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Federal National Mortgage Association v. United States of America

ORCP 21 A(3) provides for dismissal of a plaintiff's case when there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. Where the plaintiff is a defendant in another pending action, ORCP 21 A(3) does not authorize dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim unless it either was required to be asserted as a counterclaim or necessarily will be adjudicated in the other action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Carrasco-Montiel

When a party having knowledge of an error or an irregularity during trial fails to call it to the court’s attention and remains silent, speculating on the result, he is deemed to have waived the error, and the denial of a motion for a new trial based upon that ground presents no reviewable question.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Innovative Design & Construction, LLC v. CCB

When reviewing a factual finding for substantial evidence, the Court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make the factual finding in question.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

state v. Boss

Under ORAP 5.45(1), the imposition of attorney fees is clear error if there is no evidence on the record regarding Defendant's ability to pay the fee, and a reviewing court may exercise its discretion to correct the clear error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Martini v. DMV

An increased suspension under ORS 813.430(2)(b)(C) is allowed only when a person is convicted of a driving offense that includes as an element the violation of a BAC limit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. J. G. G.

A party to a juvenile proceeding “whose rights or duties are adversely affected by a judgment of the juvenile court may appeal therefrom.” ORS 419A.200(1). For the purposes of appeal, an appealable judgment includes a “final order adversely affecting the rights or duties of a party and made in a proceeding after judgment.” ORS 419A.205(1)(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. King

Under ORS 167.057, "explicit verbal description" means "explicit identification of sexual conduct when identification is intended to bring a graphic sexual image to the mind of the recipient."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Bronson

Under former ORS 135.747, a defendant must be brought to trial in a reasonable time, which is determined between the time the defendant is charged and when the trial begins, even if that trial ends in a mistrial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Padrick v. Lyons

Under the discovery rule for breaches of fiduciary duty, ORS 12.110(1), the statutory period begins to run from the earlier of (1) the date the plaintiff actually discovers the injury or (2) the date when the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, should have discovered the injury, including learning facts that an inquiry would have disclosed. A plaintiff discovers an "injury" when he knew, or reasonably should have known, of the existence of three elements: (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Dept. of Human Services v. F.B.

A case is moot when it involves a matter that no longer is a controversy between the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Gozzi v. Western Culinary Institute

The Court allowed reconsideration to clarify language in their previous opinion about the assignments of error they rejected.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. J. V.-G.

A judgment will be affirmed despite evidentiary error if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict. To determine if there is little likelihood that the error affects an outcome the court must determine whether the improperly admitted evidence could have affected the outcome of the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Reger

ORS 133.565(2)(c) requires that a search warrant, among other things, must state, or describe with particularity “[t]he things constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Baughman

Under OEC 404(4), a trial court may admit evidence of a criminal defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts if “(1) it is relevant under OEC 401, and (2) as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ‘a trial court determines whether the risk of unfair prejudice posed by the evidence outweighs its probative value under OEC 403.’” Therefore, a court must undergo a four part balancing test as required by, State v. Mayfield, 302 OR 631 (1987), to determine if the evidence is to be excluded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Unger

A Court may review an unpreserved error as a plain error if three requirements are satisfied: (1) the error is one “of law”; (2), the error is “apparent,” that is, “the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record.” Whether a trial court erred by failing to merge guilty verdicts is a question of law, which is reviewed for errors of law, and review is bound by the trial court’s record.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Weigel

Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officers or others then present.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Yes on 24-367 Committee v. Deaton

In the defamation context, a statement expresses an opinion if it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Downing

Before questioning a suspect, police must give Miranda warnings if that person is in either “full custody or in circumstances that create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling. A person has acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life when they act in “a state of mind where an individual cares little about the risk of death of a human being.” If a proper foundation is laid for it, the results of an evidence-gathering technique that is a part of the 12-step DRE protocol is independently admissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Magana-Marquez v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.214 and ORS 656.266, a claimant is entitled to an award of permanent disability benefits in connection with a compensable workplace injury only if the claimant shows that the claimant has a permanent impairment that is “due to” or “results from” the claimant’s compensable workplace injury. To make that showing, the claimant must, at a minimum, demonstrate a causal relationship between the compensable injury and the claimed impairment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

J.D. v. Klaptch

Whether a denial of a continuance is improper depends on the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time the request is denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Portland Police Assn. v. City of Portland

Oregon appellate court decisions interpreting ORS 243.706(1) hold that “the public policy analysis must be directed at the award, not the [underlying] conduct”; therefore, the board is “not to substitute [its] judgment for the arbitrator’s determination of whether the public employee engaged in the conduct resulting in discipline.” As a condition of enforceability, any arbitration award that orders the reinstatement of a public employee or otherwise relieves the public employee of responsibility for misconduct shall comply with public policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or judicial decisions including but not limited to policies respecting sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, unjustified and egregious use of physical or deadly force and serious criminal misconduct, related to work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

State v. Thompson

When an error is unpreserved, a court will address it only if (1) the error is one “of law,” (2) the point of law is “apparent,” and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record.” If the state seeks to hold a defendant liable either as the principal or as an aider and abettor and if a party requests an appropriate instruction, the trial court should instruct the jury that at least 10 jurors must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Fort v. Persson

A dismissal without prejudice cannot give rise to claim preclusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. Wehr

The trial court may not impose a sentence requiring payment of court-appointed attorney fees without evidence in the record that the defendant is or may be able to pay such fees. With invited error, a party “cannot be heard to complain,” if the party “was actively instrumental in bringing [it] about."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Dept. of Human Services v. J. M.

To support juvenile court jurisdiction following a motion to dismiss, the court must find that there is a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized, with burden on DHS. The risk of harm must be non-speculative and present at the time of the hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Masood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon

under Oregon law, “courts determine whether a contract is illegal by determining whether it violates public policy as expressed in relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and in case law, and by considering whether it is unconscionable.” An adjustment is not the only way for a new contact to be formed, but instead, when the parties agree to make a new contract, then a breach of that new agreement by either party could give rise to new legal rights. Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs or acts,” is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Adams

Former ORS 137.290(2)(b) (2009) does not apply to cases of DUII and other like cases that have been codified outside of chapter 163.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Burkette

In assessing the reasonableness of a delay, the court will examine the attendant circumstances including the “reasons for the delay, the length of the total delay attributable to the state, and the length of any portion of the delay that was unjustified.” Delays attributable to a lack of judicial resources “will, at some point, become unreasonable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Abbott

A witness, expert or otherwise, may not give an opinion on whether he believes a another witness is telling the truth. This general prohibition against asking one witness to comment on the credibility of another applies on cross-examination where a prosecutor asks a criminal defendant whether a law enforcement officer is lying.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

SAIF v. Bales

ORS 656.386(1)(a) requires the insurer to pay the claimant’s attorney fees in various circumstances, including when the insurer denies a claim for compensation and the claimant’s attorney is instrumental in obtaining rescission of the denial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Sate v. Nesbit

Under ORS 137.717(1)(a)(A) (2009), where an indictment contains multiple counts of similar conduct, before a court can use the sentence for one count as a “previous conviction” for purposes of sentencing for the other counts, the State bears the burden to prove that the counts could be tried separately without violating double jeopardy principles.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Smith

"Use" in ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both the actual use of physical force and the threat of immediate use of physical force.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wieck v. Hostetter

Where the substantial terms of a contract have been agreed on and there is nothing left for future settlement, the fact that the contract has not yet been put into writing does not leave the transaction incomplete and without binding force unless the parties had a positive agreement that it should not be binding until so reduced to writing and formally executed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Severy v. Board of Parole

The Board of Parole must may conduct a hearing, using whatever procedures it deems appropriate, to set each prisoner’s release date according to the matrix in effect when he committed his crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. J.S.

ORS 426.005(1)(e)(B) provides that for a person to be involuntarily committed there must be evidence that the person is unable to provide basic personal needs and is not already receiving such care.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Belander

When a person is convicted of a crime that results in economic damages, they can forced to pay restitution, which is a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim’s economic damages as determined by the court. Economic damages include objectively verifiable monetary losses including reasonable and necessarily incurred costs due to loss of use of property and reasonable costs incurred for repair or for replacement of damaged property, whichever is less.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Morgan

The automobile exception authorizes warrantless searches when officers have probable cause to search a vehicle that is mobile at the time that the police encounter it in connection with a crime; any search of an automobile that was parked, immobile and unoccupied at the time the police first encountered it in connection with the investigation of a crime must be authorized by a warrant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Kurtz

Under ORS 151.505(3), a defendant pays a court-appointed attorney fee only if they can "or may be able to” pay them. A court lacks authority to impose court-appointed attorney fees unless the court finds on the record that the person is or may be able to pay those costs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Sokell

Under ORS 181.805, sexual abuse is defined as “sexual abuse in any degree” as well as “any attempt to commit” sexual abuse in any degree. A sentence’s duration is not “proportioned to the offense” when the length of the sentence would shock the moral sense of a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Brumbach

To preserve an argument for appeal, “a party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Van Patten v. State of Oregon

If the statutory language is plain, a case must be determined according to the terms of the statute; however, where a term is ambiguous the phrases must be determined within the context of the current proceedings. It is unclear where there even exists a Due Process right to privacy, but if such a right exists it must be considered in light of the specific provisions of the challenged act and any intrusions must be weighed against the public interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Smith v. OHSU Hospital and CLinic

ORS 30.275(9) does not bar application of ORS 12.160 (2005) to OTCA claims, because ORS 12.160 does not provide a limitation on the commencement of an action but instead provides for tolling the time allowed for the commencement of an action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Brown

Other acts evidence that is offered for non-propensity purposes—i.e., to prove motive, intent, identity, or lack of mistake or accident—generally will be admissible as long as the particular facts of the case do not demonstrate a risk of unfair prejudice that outweighs the probative value of the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Dentel

For there to be plain error on the record,the error must be (1) one of law; (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) revealed on the face of the record, so that the court does not need to go outside the record to find error, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Hayes

A facts-based argument is not grounds for reversal because when there is evidence from which the facts could be decided in more than one way, the Court is required to presume that the trial court decided the facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. lopez-lopez

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution subjecting a person to a breath test is a search and seizure that requires a warrant or an exception. Consent is an exception. In assessing voluntariness, you examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if a defendant’s consent was the of the defendant’s free will or was the result of express or implied coercion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. R.D.S.

A trial court in a civil commitment proceeding must advise the allegedly mentally ill person directly regarding the rights guaranteed by ORS 4216.100. When the court fails to do this, it is plain error and the Court can hear the issue despite a failure to preserve.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Gram and Gram

On a motion to clarify a dissolution judgment, a trial court is permitted to interpret ambiguous portions of a dissolution judgment. A provision in a judgment is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. A trial court may not modify the property provisions of the judgment under the guise of interpreting them. A trial court will have modified the judgment if additional terms or obligations are added.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Luster

ORS 475.319(1) states, in relevant part, that a defendant may raise an affirmative defense to the criminal possession of marijuana if they have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition within 12 months of their arrest, and have been advised by the person’s attending physician that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Barnthouse

Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, the state may not use evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure. An unlawful seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with an individual's possessory interest that is not authorized by warrant or justified by an exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dept. of Human Services v. R.K.

Under ORS 419B.500 and 419B.504, to terminate parental rights a court must find (1) the parent has engaged in conduct or is characterized by a condition that is seriously detrimental to the child, (2) integration of the child into the parent's care is improbable within a reasonable time, and (3) termination is in the best interests of the child. To determine a “serious condition” the court must focus on the detrimental effects of the parent’s conduct or condition and not just the seriousness of the parents conduct. It is child specific.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Craine

Under OEC 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probably or less probable than without the evidence. Curative admissibility doctrine provides that when one party offers inadmissible evidence, which is received, the opponent may then offer similar facts whose only claim to admission is that they negate or explain the prior inadmissible evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Brock

The “automobile exception” allows an officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle provided that the vehicle is (1) mobile at the time it is first encountered by police and (2) there is probable cause for the search. Probable cause to search a vehicle is based on an officer's subjective belief that evidence of the crime exists, and that belief must also be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Burris

Under ORS 161.067--the Anti-Merger statute, guilty verdicts do not merge if the same conduct violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element the other does not.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Dickens

To establish an affirmative defense to a charge of manufacturing marijuana under ORS 465.856(1), a defendant must provide some evidence to the three specific requirements of ORS 475.319(1). Analysis of the evidence provided is to be highly deferential to the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence