State v. Benson
To establish that there was a violation of due process, a defendant must show "there was 'substantial, actual prejudice, ' and the focus of that inquiry is on ‘whether the delay violated our society’s fundamental conceptions of justice, fair play, and decency.” State v. Stokes, 350 Or 44, 64, 248 P3d 953 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lasheki
Under ORS 161.067(3), “criminal charges based on multiple violations of the same statutory provision will not merge if a ‘sufficient pause’ separates these violations.” Additionally, “a ‘pause’ occurs between two statutory violations only if the defendant’s commission of one violation ends before the second violation begins.” State v. Ortiz-Rico, 303 Or App 78, 85, 462 P3d 741 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. O’Hare
The possession of “tools of the trade” might, in some circumstances, be sufficient to support a conviction for delivery of methamphetamine under ORS 475.890, depending on what those tools were, how many were possessed, and the surrounding context. However, to conclude that so little—mere possession of things that could be used to deliver drugs—could support a delivery conviction would “unlawfully punish a defendant for the status of being a drug dealer rather than for the act of transferring or attempting to transfer controlled substances.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Poston
“All convictions for serious offenses that were based on nonunanimous verdicts involved constitutional error - a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 295 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Varde v. Run! Day Camp For Dogs, LLC
"An appellate court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over an appeal unless a statute authorizes an appeal from the judgment or order that the trial court entered.” Rauda v. Oregon Roses, Inc., 329 Or 265, 268, 986 P2d 1157 (1999). ORS 19.245 outlines when an appeal from a stipulated judgment may occur: when specifically provided by the judgment and when an “appeal presents a justiciable controversy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Forbus v. Board of Parole
“[S]entencing for aggravated murder is provided for solely by ORS 163.105 and is not covered under the guidelines.” State v. Davilla, 157 Or App 639, 647, 972 P2d 902 (1998), rev den, 334 Or 76 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
J.N.D v. Dehkordi
"Any person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator), if the person is in imminent danger of further abuse from the abuser." ORS 107.710(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
McDonnell v. Premo
“Although the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not explicitly list summary judgment as a procedure available to challenge claims, the Act does not preclude it.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Avdeyev
A witness may not call a complaint witness a victim because it “may undermine the presumption of defendant’s innocence because it assumes defendant’s guilt.” State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 133, 442 P3d 581 (2019). However, a prosecutor using the term “victim” in reference to a complaining witness is allowed only in appropriate contexts, or “the trial court has the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy, ‘subject to the defendant’s right to a fair trial'” if the usage is improper. Id. at 136.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Burris
“ORS 166.270(4) states an affirmative defense to the felony offense described in ORS 166.270. That affirmative defense explicitly applies only to the felony offense described in ORS 166.270(1), and there is no similar provision with respect to the misdemeanor offense of unlawful possession of a weapon set forth in ORS 166.250.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Dean
Under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, police may continue speaking with a defendant who has invoked the rights to remain silent or to counsel only to ask questions or make statements that are “normally attendant to arrest and custody.” State v. Schmidtke, 290 Or App 880, 885, 417 P3d 563 (2018). Any statements obtained in violation of those rights must be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Skeen
"Crime victims are entitled to restitution for ‘economic damages’ caused by defendant’s crime” ORS 137.106. “’[E]conomic damages’ are objectively verifiable out-of-pocket losses that a person could recover against the defendant in a civil action arising out of the defendant’s criminal activities.” State v. Herfurth, 283 Or App 149, 154, 388 P3d 1104 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 350 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Smith
“[W]hen a party objects to testimony as improper vouching, a court must determine whether the testimony provides an opinion on truthfulness or, instead, provides a tool that the factfinder could use in assessing credibility. That determination does not necessarily require an assessment of whether that specific tool is permitted under the rules of evidence.” State v. Black (Black II), 364 Or. 579, 593 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Soto-Navarro
"When conducting an investigation during a lawful stop, 'activities' of law enforcement must 'be reasonably related to that investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it.'" State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695 (2019) (quoting State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 781 (2013)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ellis v. Kyker
“[A] new development may be considered a legally sufficient change in circumstances only if it is shown that the change has ‘injuriously affected the child’ or affected the custodial parent’s ‘ability or inclination to care for the child in the best possible manner.’” Botofan-Miller, 365 Or 504, 520-21 (2019)(quoting Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1,9 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
H.L.P. v. Jones
"To obtain an SPO under Oregon’s civil stalking statute, a petitioner must establish the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: '(1) That the respondent engaged in "repeated and unwanted contact" with the petitioner; (2) that the petitioner was subjectively alarmed or coerced by the contact and that such alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable; (3) that the petitioner subjectively experienced apprehension about personal safety as a result of the contact and that such apprehension was objectively reasonable; and (4) that the respondent acted with the requisite mental state.'” Retherford v. Wafula, 305 Or App 344, 352, 471 P3d 786 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Kirresh v. Gill
ORS 93.910 provides, “Whenever a contract for transfer or conveyance of an interest in real property provides a forfeiture remedy . . . default under the contract may be enforced only after notice . . . .” In conjunction, ORS 93.930(1) provides, “When a contract for conveyance of real property has been forfeited in accordance with its terms . . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Barden
Under OEC 901, the proponent must present “some evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims so as to admit the evidence to the jury—for the jury remains the ultimate arbiter on authenticity, veracity, and reliability of evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Henderson
ORS 137.540(2) grants a trial court broad discretion in imposing special conditions of probation, but those conditions must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.” State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100, 102-03, 279 P3d 275 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Horner
Reversal of unanimous verdicts after a jury instruction allowing nonunanimous verdicts is not required. State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 353, 478 P3d 502 (2020). In light of Ramos, accepting “nonunanimous guilty verdicts for a nonpetty offense constitutes plain error.” State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Merrill
Ramos established that Sixth Amendment requires that all jury verdicts for serious criminal offenses be unanimous. However, error may merit reversal only if the error substantially injured the rights of the petitioner. See State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504 (2020). If an erroneously instructed jury still returns a unanimous verdict, then the error does not merit reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 334 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nelson
Concerns addressed by the instruction are not present when the testimony of accomplice witnesses does not shift blame. State v. Simson, 308 Or. 102, 110 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Peterson
“When legal disputes are encompassed in the arguments for and against a motion for judgment of acquittal, we resolve them as we would any other legal question.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364, 455 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Pryor
During questioning, a promise may be found to be improper inducement if the questioner “communicates the idea of a temporal benefit or disadvantage… in exchange for a confession,” and that offer is then accepted in order to get the benefit. State v. Chavez-Meza, 301 Or App 373, 387 (2019); State v. Simmons, 302 Or App 133, 139 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Pusztai
“Generally, we will affirm a judgment, even after concluding that a trial court erred in sentencing, when the record shows that the trial court could have imposed the same total sentence without the error, and we are ‘completely confident’ that the trial court would impose the same sentence if the case were remanded for resentencing.” State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 287 Or App 526, 530, 404 P3d 1081 (2017) (quoting State v. Calderon-Ortiz, 222 Or App 1, 8, 191 P3d 808 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. S. S.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A), an individual may be involuntarily committed if the individual: (1) engaged in behavior that “caused or risked serious harm” and (2) the behavior is likely to recur. State v. T. Y., 285 Or App 21, 24, 396 P3d 986 (2017); State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 751, 386 P3d 99 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Thompson v. Portland Adventist Medical Center
“[T]o toll the limitations period, a plaintiff’s mental condition ‘must have been such as to have actually barred her from knowing that [the defendant] had harmed her.’” Gaspar v. Village Missions, 154 Or App 286, 292 (1998) (emphasis in original). The severity of a plaintiff’s mental condition to qualify for such a bar is a factual question. Roberts v. Drew, 105 Or App 251, 255 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure