Willamette Law Online

(49 summaries)

Phillip Jones

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. HoldorfCriminal Law: An officer who stops a defendant can rely on factual information provided to him by other officers to establish “reasonable suspicion.” An officer’s observation that defendant appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, based on the officer’s training and experience, is sufficient to establish “reasonable suspicion” that defendant had committed the crime of possession of methamphetamine. (08-07-2014)
Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLPProfessional Responsibility: Attorney-client privilege, as defined in OEC 503, applies to communications between lawyers in a firm and in-house counsel. The appropriate remedy when a discovery order erroneously requires disclosure of privileged information is mandamus. (05-30-2014)
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. JonesAppellate Procedure: In order to preserve error defendant must give the judge an opportunity to adequately explain reasoning for a ruling. (04-08-2015)
State v. ThomasEvidence: When the court allows the State to improperly admit a "vouching" statement it is harmless error if the statement may actually bolster the defense's theory of the case.(04-01-2015)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. K.Juvenile Law: Patterns of drug abuse and failures to complete counseling all demonstrate a pattern that is likely to repeat itself and thus a court can find future detriment to children.(03-25-2015)
State v. LunettaEvidence: When the evidence has a tendency to connect defendant to the charged crimes independent of any accomplice testimony, the accomplice testimony is corroborated.(03-04-2015)
State v. EnglishCriminal Law: A person who is aware of, and consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that an injury will occur acts recklessly, not knowingly.(02-25-2015)
State v. KuschnickConstitutional Law:  Even if officers lawfully extended a stop to investigate the passenger’s involvement in another crime, once that investigation end and the officers are prepared to give defendant his citation, the officers violated Article I, section 9, when they do not issue the citation and instead continued to seize defendant without justification. (02-19-2015)
State v. AntoineCriminal Procedure: As long as the State’s election of criminal acts it was prosecuting at trial does not introduce a new theory, element, or crime it is permissible.(02-11-2015)
Arms v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: To properly analyze a claim, the court must first determine whether a claimant has a compensable injury and whether he sought medical services for a condition that was “caused in material part by” that injury. If it was, the court is to consider whether any of the limitations identified in ORS 656.245(1)(a) apply — namely, the limitations set out in ORS 656.225 and the limitations for consequential or combined conditions.(02-04-2015)
State v. UrbaschakAppellate Procedure: Erroneously admitted evidence that is not cumulative and relates to a central disputed issue is not harmless error.(01-22-2015)
Wade v. BrockampPost-Conviction Relief: Failure of counsel to object to a faulty jury instruction may prejudice defendant and suffice to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.(01-07-2015)
State v. ClemonsCriminal Procedure: There are three factors to determine causal connection in considering evidence tainted under the fourth amendment: the temporal proximity between unlawful police conduct and the discovery of the evidence; the presence of intervening circumstances, and "particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct."(12-24-2014)
State v. CrombieFamily Abuse Prevention Act: Defendant may not address the victim of a FAPA order in a pleading, which may include some statements addressed to the court if it is clear they were intended for the victim. (12-24-2014)
State v. TraylorCriminal Law: Under ORS 137.123(5)(a) the fact that defendant was more destructive of property than he needed to be in the manner in which he conducted the burglary permits the inference that defendant was willing to commit the separate offense of criminal mischief in addition to the offense of burglary. (12-17-2014)
State v. KochCriminal Procedure: Evidence acquired after a Miranda violation should be inadmissible, and its admission is grounds for reversal. (12-03-2014)
State v. TaylorAppellate Procedure: Under ORS 138.050, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction when defendant's claim is not a claim that the fee exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.(11-13-2014)
State v. ChenTraffic Infractions: Stopping in the middle of the road causing vehicles to slow and swerve is impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. (10-29-2014)
State v. WilsonEvidence: Admitting testimony from an officer trained as a drug-recognition expert (DRE) in the absence of an adequate scientific foundation is not in error because the testimony constitutes nonscientific expert opinion evidence.(10-15-2014)
Adams v. West Coast TrustTrusts and Estates: The probate court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reconsider an order approving the sale of mineral rights.(10-08-2014)
State v. VanderzandenCriminal Law: A jury instruction that follows the statute must not construe the statutory language contrary to caselaw.(10-01-2014)
State v. RussellCriminal Procedure: The implication by a party, stopped by police, that he is in possession of a weapon was reasonable grounds an officer’s safety concerns. (09-10-2014)
State v. Turntine Criminal Law: The words "previously convicted" in ORS 163.160(3)include those offenders found guilty of previously assaulting the same victim, even if a formal judgment of conviction has not yet been entered on the previous assault.(09-04-2014)
State v. GoecksCriminal Procedure: An affidavit for a search warrant must contain a connection between the defendant and the illegal activity to be considered to have probable cause. (08-27-2014)
State v. CauseyEvidence: If an out-of-court statement's relevance depends on the truth of the content of the messages, the messages were hearsay and not admissible.(08-20-2014)
State v. KinneyAppellate Procedure: A trial court may deny self-representation on an anticipated disruption of the judicial process.(08-13-2014)
State v. O'DellCriminal Law: Defendant's charges of felon in possession of a firearm should be merged if Defendant was found in constructive possession of the firearms and there is not sufficient evidence to show an interruption in the possession. (07-16-2014)
State v. Hernandez-FabianCriminal Procedure: A defendant's awareness of statements and their substance does not compensate for the State's failure to comply with notice requirements in OEC 803(18a)(b).(07-02-2014)
State v. Charles Criminal Procedure: A totality of the circumstances test is to be used when determining whether actions constituted a show of authority such that a reasonable person would have believed that the officer had intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived the individual of his or her liberty or freedom of movement.(06-18-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. R. C.Juvenile Law: The fact that a juvenile was in foster care at the time of the state's amended petition, alleging that there is a serious risk of harm to the child, is not sufficient to dismiss an allegation. (06-11-2014)
State v. CherryCriminal Law: When a jail deputy, pursuant to an invalid administrative inventory policy, removes items from defendant's pocket, the evidence discovered as a result of the search must be suppressed.(05-07-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. C. P.Family Law: In a hearing to determine Mother's motion to set aside relinquishments, an attorney should be provided in order to ensure the procedural protections required for a fundamentally fair hearing. (04-23-2014)
Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn CarneyContract Law: A court resorts to the general policy in favor of arbitration only when a contract is ambiguous and there is no extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.(04-16-2014)
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)