Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Phillip Jones

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
McCann/Harmon v. Rosenblum Ballot Titles: Under ORS 250.035, a ballot title must include a caption, results statements, and summary which adequately describe the effects of voting one way or another, and reasonably identify the subject matter. Where more specific language is available, it should be used to describe the ballot title in a simple and understandable way that adequately describes the effects a ballot title would have on current law.(02-13-2014)
State v. ZolotoffCriminal Procedure: ORS 136.460(2) prescribes the order of jury deliberations but does not preclude a trial court from informing jurors on the elements of relevant lesser-included offenses in advance of their deliberations on the greater charged offense, in addition, ORS 136.460(2) does not preclude the jury from contemplating the law as it applies to lesser-included offenses when deliberating about the charged offense. (01-30-2014)
State v. MooreCriminal Procedure: A police officer does not coerce a defendant into submitting to the statutorily required tests when the officer gives the defendant accurate information about the lawful adverse consequences that might result from a refusal(12-12-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. ArnoldEvidence: In order to admit evidence of a prior bad act, the state must show that the acts were "so distinctive that both crimes can be attributable to one criminal. In other words, the modus operandi must be unusual." (04-02-2014)
State v. BeauvaisEvidence: Simply because evidence subsequently becomes irrelevant after the state's dismissal of charges relating to another defendant, is not sufficient to demonstrate prejudice.(03-26-2014)
State v. WeilertAppellate Procedure: Given the state of the law at the time of defendant's trial, it would be unfair to hold that Defendant forfeited the opportunity to challenge venue prior to trial.(03-05-2014)
State v. McClatcheyCriminal Procedure: The State has the burden to show that a warrant obtained after an illegal search is untainted by the original search. Additionally, a person is not required to assert a privacy interest in their cell phone to receive Article I Section 9 protections.(11-20-2013)
Tough and ToughFamily Law: When there is a dispute as to the division of benefits, the Court is to look at the construction of the dissolution judgment. (10-30-2013)
State v. EvilsizerAppellate Procedure: In review of a judgment of acquittal, when the court is asked to determine whether evidence was presented to the jury from which the jury could find the defendant guilty, the Court must read the jury instructions as the jury might reasonably have understood them.(10-09-2013)
Salgado and SalgadoFamily Law: When a trial court in a dissolution case relies on a particular valuation methodology, there must be some evidence in the record that sets forth that methodology.(09-18-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. F .Juvenile Law: The court will look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if the record is legally sufficient to permit a court's ruling that there was a current threat of serious injury to the children.(08-14-2013)
Woodroffe v. NoothHabeas Corpus: Past deliberate indifference is insufficient to support habeas relief.(07-31-2013)
State v. Avila-NavaCriminal Procedure: Follow-up and clarifying questions after giving Miranda warnings are permissible only when the invocation of the right to remain silent is equivocal. Error allowing prosecution to impeach witness is not harmless error when the defendant's credibility is vital to the defense.(07-03-2013)
Two Two v. Fujitec Tort Law: An affidavit outlining elements on which an expert will testify that lacks indication that the expert will testify as to causation, absent other supporting evidence, is not sufficient to establish an issue of material fact. (05-30-2013)
State v. OneillCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.200, a defendant’s perception of a threat must be reasonable as gauged by an objective reasonable person standard, rather than a subjective, defendant-specific standard. (05-15-2013)
State v. CamAppellate Procedure: Questions of fact not raised at the trial court level will, on reconsideration, be viewed as consistent with the trial court's ultimate conclusion.(04-17-2013)