Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was accused of embezzling money from her employer in multiple transactions over a period of sixteen months. The prosecutor aggregated those transactions to indict defendant on sixteen counts of theft, one count for each month. The prosecutor's office did not have a "policy" for aggregating theft transactions, but did so to create "a clear organizational outline for the jury." Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it violated the Supreme Court's mandate in "Oregon v. Freeland," (667 P2dd 509 (1983)). The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the privileges and immunities provision of the state constitution, and whether it applied to prosecutors' charging decisions. If so, then the question remaining in this case was whether the prosecutor must consistently adhere to a coherent, systematic policy in making charging decisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed defendant's conviction. By this decision, the Supreme Court overruled "Freeman" and reaffirmed its decision in "Washington v. Clark," (630 P2d 810 (1981)). View "Oregon v. Savastano" on Justia Law

Defendant kidnapped his victim as part of an effort to persuade her not to testify against one of his friends. The friend had terrorized, raped, and sodomized the victim, and the victim feared that the defendant would use a gun to harm her. As a result, a grand jury indicted defendant for, among other things, second-degree kidnapping. He waived his right to a jury, and the trial court convicted him of that crime in addition to several others. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether the state constitution required that the facts necessary to impose a dangerous offender sentence be found by the grand jury and pleaded in the indictment. The trial court held that it did not, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed, and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "Oregon v. Reinke" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that when he possessed the firearm in question, he was not a "person who has been convicted of a felony" within the meaning of the felon-in-possession statute. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had not declared defendant's conviction to be a misdemeanor in the original or a subsequent judgment of conviction by the time that defendant possessed the firearm in question. Accordingly, the Court rejected defendant's claim of error and affirm his conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. View "Oregon v. Stark" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several weapons-related charges based on his possession of loaded semiautomatic handguns and a knife in a public place within the city of Portland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court to review his convictions. The Court concluded that the ordinance enacted by the City of Portland was constitutional, and therefore affirmed. View "Oregon v. Christian" on Justia Law

Defendant Dean MacBale petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the trial court in his case to hold a public hearing to determine the admissibility of a rape victim's past sexual conduct, notwithstanding the state Rape Shield law. Defendant claimed that the victim made false allegations against him so that she could later bring a civil action against him for money damages. Defendant wanted to present evidence that the victim had a habit of falsely accusing men for later financial gain. Before his criminal trial, Defendant filed a motion under the Rape Shield law to determine the admissibility of the victim's conduct. The court granted the motion for a hearing, but denied making the hearing public in accordance with the Rape Shield Law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a hearing to determine admissibility of evidence under the Rape Shield Law does not constitute an "administration of justice" for the purposes of Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, and therefore, such hearing could be closed to the public. View "Oregon v. MacBale" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the admission of certain evidence following being held in contempt for violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. On appeal, defendant argued that the admission of a certificate of service at trial violated his right to confrontation under the state Constitution because the State did not establish the declarant was unable to testify. The trial court concluded the certificate was admissible; the appellate court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the out-of-court declaration made by the deputy sheriff who issued the certificate was not "witness" evidence that triggered defendant's constitutional rights; the certificate was an official record that the deputy was duty-bound to report, and it did not include investigative or gratuitous facts or opinions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial and appellate courts. View "Oregon v. Copeland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant James Watson's motion to suppress evidence. Police stopped defendant to investigate a traffic violation but decided not to issue a citation. Defendant was nevertheless detained, and he argued that that detention was a violation of his constitutional rights. Police would uncover marijuana, cocaine and related paraphernalia inside defendant's car. After review of the trial court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that the detention was for further investigation, and was reasonably related to the traffic stop. View "Oregon v. Watson" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted for the 1989 killing of the Department of Corrections director. At the time, Oregon law provided two sentencing options for aggravated murder: death or life with the possibility of parole (ordinary life). Petitioner contended that he received inadequate assistance of counsel at the time of his criminal trial, specifically that he was not told he had the right to object to a new sentencing law to his case on ex post facto grounds. The post-conviction court found that as a matter of fact, petitioner did not established that the advice would have made a difference. The appellate court and Supreme Courts affirmed that decision. View "Gable v. Oregon" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter centered on what constitutes a reprieve under the Oregon Constitution. After the Court affirmed Plaintiff-Respondent Gary Haugen's aggravated murder conviction and death sentence, he dropped all appeals, and the trial court set an execution date. The Governor subsequently issued a reprieve suspending Defendant's sentence for the duration of the Governor's term. Defendant purported to reject the reprieve, and sought to have it declared ineffective and invalid. The trial court held that a reprieve must be accepted to be effective and ruled the Governor's reprieve ineffective. The Governor appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the reprieve was valid and effective regardless of whether Defendant rejected it, and accordingly reversed the trial court. View "Haugen v. Kitzhaber" on Justia Law

Two law enforcement officers, believing that defendant was being assaulted, responded to an incomplete 9-1-1 call that had been traced to defendant's home. One officer took defendant's husband into custody, while the other officer proceeded to interview defendant on the porch of her home. While interviewing defendant, the officer made an observation that caused him to reasonably believe defendant might be in possession of drugs. The officer asked defendant if he could search her, and she agreed. During the search, the officer discovered a glass pipe with drug residue on it. Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case was whether the officers' actions, commands, and inquiries in investigating the possible domestic assault resulted in a seizure of defendant within the meaning of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and, if so, whether that seizure was constitutionally permissible. The Court concluded that defendant was seized for constitutional purposes, but the Court further concluded that the seizure was lawful. The Court accordingly reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Oregon v. Fair" on Justia Law