Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Ivey Barrett was convicted of misdemeanor stalking. The victim in this case is Appellant Linda Barrett, Defendant's estranged wife. Oregon law granted certain crime victims a "meaningful role" with respect to the criminal prosecution of the accused. At the onset of such proceedings, the prosecutor must inform the trial court, among other things, whether the victim is present, and if not, whether the victim requested advance notice of any critical stage of the proceeding. State law allows victims whose rights are violated to inform the trial court and propose a remedy. Mrs. Barrett invoked her right to be notified, and completed a form memorializing that request. A victim advocate told Mrs. Barrett that she did not need to be present for a pretrial appearance by Defendant. That appearance was not scheduled to involve entry of a plea or sentencing. However, the prosecutor negotiated a plea with Defendant prior to that hearing, and Defendant pled before the court. Mrs. Barrett filed a claim for violation of her rights as a crime victim because she was not notified of that hearing. The trial court agreed that Mrs. Barrett's rights had been violated, but held that state law provided no relief for the violation. On appeal, Mrs. Barrett argued to the Supreme Court that state law permitted her to "propose" her relief. She argued that the trial court erred by not vacating its sentencing decision so that she could be present. The Supreme Court found that Mrs. Barrett was entitled to a remedy, and that vacating Defendant's sentence and conducting a resentencing hearing was permissible under state law. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

Two women brandishing swords robbed the Purple Parrot Lounge in Klamath Falls. As a result of that crime, a grand jury charged Defendant Roberta Gilmore with conspiracy and first-degree robbery. The trial court arraigned Defendant on those charges and appointed counsel to represent her. After her arraignment, Defendant remained in custody pending trial. Approximately two months later, Defendant sent two notes to the Oregon State Police, asking a detective to "come talk to her." Though the notes did not specify what Defendant wanted to talk about, the police noted that Defendant "wanted to see her kids before she went to prison." The Supreme Court characterized this case as one involving questions on what steps police must take to ensure a knowing and intentional waiver of a defendant's constitutional rights. The trial court implicitly found that Defendant had waived her right to counsel and denied her motion to suppress the statements made after she passed those two notes to the police. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court found that the police officer did not advise Defendant of her Miranda rights when he spoke to Defendant at her request. Therefore, the statements to the officer should have been suppressed. The Court reversed the appellate and trial courts' decisions, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Bobby Guggenmos appealed the Court of Appealsâ decision that affirmed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug-related evidence seized by the police from his bedroom. Officers, without a warrant, searched Defendantâs bedroom in a house they believed to be involved in drug trafficking. An informant had stated that persons in the house hid known criminals there. The state charged Defendant with possession based on the evidence found after the officersâ search of the house. Defendant claimed that the officerâs âprotective sweepâ of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights. After an exhaustive review of the record, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate courtâs decision, finding that the officers did not have probable cause to search Defendantâs home. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.