Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a defendant who intentionally set a fire in her apartment building, resulting in property damage and serious injuries to another resident. The defendant was convicted of first-degree arson after the trial court found that she had intentionally caused the fire and recklessly placed others in danger of physical injury. During sentencing, the trial court considered various mitigating circumstances related to the defendant's mental health and personal history and concluded that the mandatory 90-month prison sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate. Instead, the court imposed a 60-month term of probation.The state appealed the trial court's decision, and the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in relying on the defendant's personal characteristics and circumstances in its proportionality analysis. The appellate court concluded that the 90-month mandatory minimum sentence required by ORS 137.700(2)(b)(A) was not constitutionally disproportionate as applied to the defendant.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence violated the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the 90-month mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree arson was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The court reasoned that the defendant's conduct was egregious and caused significant harm, and that there was no societal consensus or objective evidence indicating that individuals with mental health issues similar to the defendant's are less morally culpable for their crimes. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence did not shock the moral sense of reasonable people. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer, qualified as an expert in evaluating impaired driving, testified in a criminal case that babies have limited peripheral vision and that a person impaired by alcohol could be said to be seeing just like a baby. The defendant objected to this testimony as hearsay, but the trial court overruled the objection, reasoning that the officer was explaining the basis for his opinion. The defendant was subsequently convicted of DUII, reckless driving, and reckless endangerment.The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the officer's testimony about baby vision as it was hearsay and beyond the officer's expertise. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that the testimony was not hearsay because it did not recount a particular statement made by the ophthalmologist and was offered to explain the officer's expert opinion.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the officer's testimony about baby vision was inadmissible hearsay because it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted and merely repeated information beyond the officer's personal or specialized knowledge. The court also concluded that the error was not harmless, as the testimony was central to the state's theory of impairment and was qualitatively different from other evidence presented. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The petitioner pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree sodomy and was sentenced to 60 months in prison for Count 1, 100 months for Count 3, and 100 months for Count 5, with the sentences for Counts 3 and 5 to be served consecutively. The trial court also imposed terms of post-prison supervision (PPS) for each count, calculated as 240 months minus the term of imprisonment served for each count. The petitioner completed his prison terms and was released in April 2016.The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision calculated the PPS terms by subtracting the time served for each count from the 240-month maximum, resulting in 180 months for Count 1 and 140 months for Counts 3 and 5. The petitioner argued that the "term of imprisonment served" should be the total time served for all counts, which would result in a shorter PPS term. The board rejected this argument, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the board's decision.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the "term of imprisonment served" in ORS 144.103 refers to the time spent in prison for the specific count of conviction, not the total time served for all counts. The court also concluded that the PPS term begins when the offender is released into the community, not while still incarcerated on other counts. Therefore, the court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. View "Kragt v. Board of Parole" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was charged with 46 sex crimes against the same person over an eight-year period. The counts in the indictment were identical and did not specify the incidents they were based on. During the first trial, the state did not link any specific incidents to the counts, and the jury found the defendant not guilty of 40 counts and guilty of six. The defendant appealed, arguing an evidentiary error, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.On remand, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that retrying him on the six counts of conviction would violate his constitutional rights against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to a second jury trial, where the defendant was again convicted of the six counts. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals had erred in resolving the case on preservation grounds. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had consistently raised the same double jeopardy argument throughout the case: that due to the lack of specificity in the indictment and the first trial, it was impossible to determine the factual basis for any count, and there was a risk that he would be convicted based on incidents of which he had already been acquitted. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the merits of the double jeopardy issue. View "State v. Dodge" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant charged with multiple first-degree sexual offenses against a victim, J, who has an intellectual disability. The defendant did not dispute J's disability but argued that she was capable of consenting to the sexual acts. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, and a jury convicted him of various charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that the state failed to prove that J's disability rendered her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.The Oregon Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show that J was incapable of understanding the sexual nature of the conduct or exercising judgment to consent to it. The state petitioned for review, challenging the Court of Appeals' interpretation and application of the relevant statutes.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the interpretation of ORS 163.305(3) and ORS 163.315(1)(b), which define when a person is incapable of consenting to a sexual act due to a mental defect. The court clarified that to be capable of consent, a person must be able to appraise the nature of their conduct, which involves exercising judgment and making choices based on an understanding of the conduct's significance. The court emphasized that the state must prove that the person's intellectual disability prevented them from appraising the nature of the conduct at the time of the alleged offense.The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find that J's intellectual disability rendered her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 due to a nonunanimous jury verdict, remanding for further proceedings. View "State v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The case involves a criminal defendant charged with domestic violence offenses who served a pretrial subpoena on Clackamas Women’s Services (CWS) to obtain records related to services provided to the alleged victim (AV). CWS moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the records were protected under Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) 507-1 and ORS 147.600, which protect confidential communications and records created or maintained in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence. The defendant sought the records to challenge AV’s credibility, claiming she fabricated her claims to obtain financial assistance.The Clackamas County Circuit Court quashed the subpoena in part but ordered CWS to produce records disclosing the cell phone information and financial assistance provided to AV. CWS sought mandamus relief from the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the records were protected under the statute and rule, and disclosure without AV’s consent was prohibited.The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with CWS, holding that the records ordered for production by the trial court were protected under OEC 507-1 and ORS 147.600. The court concluded that the statute and rule broadly protect all records created or maintained by CWS in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence, including those that do not contain confidential communications. The court also determined that the trial court had no authority to require CWS to create a new document disclosing the information contained in the protected records. Consequently, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its orders. View "State v. Sacco" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the defendant was convicted of third-degree assault under Oregon law. The incident involved the defendant injuring the victim, RR, during a confrontation where RR approached the defendant with a metal pole. The defendant claimed self-defense, stating that he inadvertently injured RR while disarming her. The injury resulted in multiple fractures to RR’s eye socket and a laceration near her left eye.The Curry County Circuit Court convicted the defendant, and he appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by giving a special jury instruction requested by the state. This instruction defined “serious physical injury” to include “protracted disfigurement” and specified that a scar visible five months after the injury qualifies as such. The defendant did not object to this instruction during the trial but contended on appeal that it constituted a “plain error” under Oregon appellate rules.The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was an impermissible comment on the evidence, violating ORCP 59 E, which prohibits trial courts from instructing juries on matters of fact. However, the court held that the error did not qualify as a plain error because it was possible that the defendant had agreed to the instruction or made a strategic choice not to object, meaning the error did not appear on the record.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in its plain-error analysis. The Supreme Court determined that whether a jury instruction violates the rules governing jury instructions can be assessed based on the instruction itself. The court concluded that the trial court’s instruction was a plain error because it was an error of law, obvious, and apparent on the record. However, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion to reverse the conviction, considering factors such as the gravity of the error, the parties’ interests, and the purposes of the preservation requirement. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court were affirmed. View "State v. Wiltse" on Justia Law

The case involves the interpretation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.255, which makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition if they have been convicted of a "qualifying misdemeanor" involving the use or attempted use of physical force. The defendant, Richard Darrel Eggers, was convicted of harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) for subjecting his brother to offensive physical contact. The key issue is whether this harassment conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor involving "physical force" under ORS 166.255.The Lane County Circuit Court concluded that harassment did involve physical force and imposed a firearms prohibition on Eggers. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that "offensive physical contact" did not necessarily constitute "physical force" as required by ORS 166.255(3)(e). The state then sought review from the Oregon Supreme Court.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the statutory construction of ORS 166.255. The court examined the legislative intent behind the statute and noted that the Oregon legislature modeled ORS 166.255 after the federal firearms prohibition in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The United States Supreme Court had previously interpreted the term "physical force" in VAWA to include even the slightest offensive touching, akin to common-law battery.The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the legislature intended ORS 166.255 to mirror the federal law, including its interpretation of "physical force." Therefore, the court held that the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment does constitute "physical force" for the purposes of ORS 166.255(3)(e). Consequently, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the firearms prohibition against Eggers. View "State v. Eggers" on Justia Law

The case involves the interpretation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.255, which makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition if they have been convicted of a "qualifying misdemeanor" involving the use or attempted use of physical force against a family or household member. The defendant, Richard Darrel Eggers, was convicted of harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) for subjecting his brother to offensive physical contact during a domestic altercation.The Lane County Circuit Court concluded that the harassment conviction constituted a "qualifying misdemeanor" under ORS 166.255, thereby prohibiting Eggers from possessing firearms. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment did not meet the "physical force" requirement of ORS 166.255(3)(e).The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment qualifies as "physical force" under ORS 166.255(3)(e). The court concluded that the Oregon legislature intended to align ORS 166.255 with the federal firearms prohibition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which the U.S. Supreme Court had interpreted to include even minimal offensive touching as "physical force" in United States v. Castleman.The Oregon Supreme Court held that the "physical force" requirement in ORS 166.255(3)(e) includes the degree of force necessary to complete a common-law battery, which encompasses offensive physical contact. Therefore, harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) is a "qualifying misdemeanor" for the purposes of ORS 166.255. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the firearms prohibition against Eggers. View "State v. Eggers" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was charged with second-degree murder and held in jail pending trial. A jury acquitted him of the murder charge but convicted him of first-degree manslaughter, resulting in a 200-month prison sentence. The plaintiff later sought habeas corpus relief in federal court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The federal court agreed, terminating the state's authority to hold him for the manslaughter conviction. The state chose to retry him, and he was transferred to the custody of the Multnomah County Sheriff.In the Multnomah County Circuit Court, the plaintiff filed two motions for release under ORS 136.290, which limits pretrial custody to 60 days. Both motions were denied by different judges, who ruled that the 60-day limit does not apply to retrials. The plaintiff then petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he should be released based on the 60-day limit. The court ordered the sheriff to show cause but did not order the plaintiff's release. Subsequently, the plaintiff pleaded no-contest to the manslaughter charge and was sentenced to 120 months, less time than he had already served, leading to his release.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether ORS 136.290 applies to retrials. The court concluded that the 60-day limit on pretrial custody does apply to retrials. The court reasoned that the statute's text, context, and legislative history indicate that it aims to limit the time a defendant can be held in custody pending trial, regardless of whether it is the first or a subsequent trial. The court denied the plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus because he was no longer in custody. View "Benjamin v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law