Willamette Law Online

(23 summaries)

Katherine Yancey

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Eumana-MoranchelEvidence: When there is a delay between a DUII arrest and a breath or blood test, the State may offer expert testimony explaining retrograde extrapolation to establish a defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) was over the limit at the time defendant was driving.(05-10-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. AlexanderSentencing: An offer by the State to Defendant that it "might" impose an upward durational departure beyond the statutory maximum sentence, without mention of the specific enhancement fact, did not satisfy the notice requirements in ORS 136.765(2).(03-13-2013)
Byers v. PremoPost-Conviction Relief: Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. While petitioner satisfied the first prong when his counsel failed to tell him that by stipulating to facts at trial, he could face consecutive sentences, he failed to prove that but for counsel's advice, he would not have agreed to a stipulated facts trial.(02-13-2013)
State v. WeinerCriminal Procedure: Under the unavoidable lull rule, it is not an unconstitutional seizure for an officer to make inquiries unrelated to a traffic stop while that officer is waiting for the results of a records check, so long as those inquiries do not unlawfully expand the stop. (01-16-2013)
State v. JepsonCriminal Procedure: Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement, except when that consent is acquired by an officer's use of an unconditional statement, which does not invite a response or request consent, that the officer plans to seize evidence.(12-19-2012)
V.A.N. v. ParsonsCivil Stalking Protective Order: ORS 30.866 requires that evidence in support of a stalking order prove that the contact reveals an unequivocal threat that instills a fear of serious and physical injury from the speaker that is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts. Without other evidence, a threat to "confront" a person does not involve violence or other unlawful acts.(12-05-2012)
State v. HuffCriminal Procedure: Officer's search warrant affidavit based on a small amount of drugs for personal use, combined with evidence that defendant and his roommate are both on post-prison supervision for drug possession, is not enough, by itself, to establish probable cause. The affidavit must provide enough facts to permit a magistrate reasonably to conclude that it is more likely than not that additional evidence of criminal drug activity will be found.(11-15-2012)
State v. PowellSentencing: A sentence is excessive if the term of post-prison supervision, when added to a prison term, exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime of conviction. However, the error is harmless when it does not result in any adverse consequences or will not improve the defendant's position.(10-24-2012)
Koch v. StatePost-Conviction Relief: Defense counsel's advice that Defendant should proceed with a stipulated facts trial was incorrect when counsel neither disputed those facts, nor presented any evidence to the contrary.(10-10-2012)
Bostwick v. CourseyPost-Conviction Relief: When defense counsel fails to ask the court to consider lesser-included offenses, a criminal defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief.(09-19-2012)
McCollum v. DLCDLand Use: Under Measure 49 and SB 1049, the number of homesite approvals a landowner may obtain is limited in proportion by acreage, unless the landowner otherwise qualifies for relief under Section 6(3) of Measure 49.(08-29-2012)
State v. DalbyCriminal Procedure: While mentioning to a jury that a defendant exercised and invoked the right to remain silent is "presumably" harmful, it only becomes reversible error if the evidence comes "in a context whereupon inferences prejudicial to the defendant are likely to be drawn by the jury."(08-15-2012)
State v. RowellCriminal Procedure: When an inventory search deviates from the established policy or procedures of a particular law enforcement agency, the inventory search will be deemed invalid, and the evidence will be suppressed.(08-01-2012)
State v. HarperCriminal Law: To be reviewable, any challenge to a jury instruction must be preserved at trial. When there is a single victim for the two events, convictions for stealing property and then selling that property must be merged as a single conviction.(07-18-2012)
State v. MorganEvidence: In a DUII case involving a prescribed dose of medication, defense counsel may impeach the officer under OEC 706 as to the authority of the NHTSA manual which says that FSTs are not reliable to assess the impairment of someone who has taken that medication.(07-11-2012)
State v. Sanchez-JacoboCriminal Law: It was not improper "vouching" for a witness's credibility when she testified that part of her plea bargain included coming to court and telling the truth, and a prosecutor's misstatement of law during closing argument was not plain error, nor was it preserved on appeal.(06-27-2012)
State v. ReevesCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.067(2), because the children depicted in pornographic images are "multiple victims" for the purpose of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, merger of more than one guilty verdict into one conviction is precluded, regardless of whether it is the same criminal episode.(06-06-2012)
State v. NguyenCivil Stalking Protective Order: A defendant who seeks to challenge a conviction under ORS 163.750 for violating a stalking protective order on free speech grounds must first successfully attack the underlying protective order.(05-31-2012)
State v. LewisSentencing: A defendant's due process and speedy trial rights are not violated when the defendant is convicted in Oregon but not sentenced until he returns from serving almost a 20-year sentence in Washington for separate crimes.(04-25-2012)
State v. ElliottCriminal Law: When a defendant is charged with identity theft, evidence that a defendant stole credit cards is legally sufficient to permit a jury to infer the defendant's intent to deceive or defraud beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the defendant took no action in furtherance of that identity theft.(04-04-2012)
State v. NimsCriminal Procedure: Under the unavoidable lull rule, it is not unlawful for an officer to inquire about matters unrelated to the initial violation as long as the inquiry does not unlawfully extend that traffic stop.(03-14-2012)
State v. Delatorre-VargasCriminal Procedure: The identifications were obtained using suggestive procedures and the State failed to demonstrate that the identifications were independently reliable. The errors in admitting the identification evidence were not harmless.(03-07-2012)
State v. JassoEvidence: 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.(02-29-2012)