Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in October 2020

State v. Bradley

Under ORS 161.067(3), a sufficient pause “occurs when there is a temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his [...] criminal intent.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Carrera

"The consideration of prior juvenile adjudications in sentencing does not violate the sixth amendment, but, if the existence of a juvenile adjudication is offered as an enhancement factor to increase a criminal sentence, its existence must be proved to a trier of fact or admitted by a defendant for sentencing purposes following an informed and knowing waiver." State v. Harris, 339 Or 157, 175 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Martin

“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” OEC 901(1). “Showing that the blood sample was a valid blood draw from defendant involves laying a traditional chain of custody foundation[.]” State v. Owens, 207 Or App 31, 41, 139 P3d 984 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 503 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Nyland v. City of Portland

"There is no applicable 'comprehensive [and exclusive] pattern for judicial review,' as there was in Bay River. Cf. Bay River, 26 Or App at 720.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes County

"Under our reasoning in Clark, which separated the proposed decision to extend boundaries from any subsequent potential decision about the use of land in question, a request for determination of lot-of-record status, even if a necessary antecedent to the approval of subsequently proposed development, does not constitute a request for the approval of a proposed development of land."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State v. LGS-S

[T]he State was required by ORS 419C.450 to present its restitution evidence before the court concluded the adjudicatory hearing.” State v. L.G.S.-S., 307 Or App 208, 212 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Central Lincoln People's Utility District v. Oregon Department of Energy

...any failure to comply with ORS 469.421(8)(b)’s “full accounting” requirement in 2014 is different from the error exhibited in the 2016 ESA orders because 2015 legislative action functioned as an intervening event, and required 2016 ESA order to be issued in light of procedural flaws.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.

DHS must show the jurisdictional judgment has no “practical effect on the rights of the parties” by rebutting the parent’s showing of “continuing practical effects or collateral consequences that, in the parent’s view, render the appeal justiciable.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 426, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Robinette v. Saif Corporation

“[i]n general, the workers’ compensation laws require specific written notice whenever an employer intends to deny compensation.” Caren v. Providence Health System Oregon, 365 Or 466, 484, 446 P3d 67 (2019). This notion is applicable to claims that do not blend “the work injury and the preexisting condition.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Hunt

Under ORS 138.035(3), “new or modified condition[s] of probation” does not include sanctions; sanctions imposed on a probationer by a trial court are not appealable under ORS 138.035(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Vierria

Where a defendant is deprived of otherwise available options for reducing the burden associated with paying mandatory fees due to the court’s imposition of those fees outside the defendant’s presence, the error is not harmless. See, e.g., State v. Postlethwait, 303 Or App 163, 164, 459 P3d 964, rev den, 366 Or 827 (2020)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Zook

ORS 813.225(4) provides, “[t]he court may grant a petition for an extension [...] if the court finds that the defendant made a good faith effort to complete the conditions of the diversion agreement and that the defendant can complete the conditions of the diversion agreement within the requested extended diversion period.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top