Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in May 2019

White v. Premo

Miller v. Alabama prohibits a court from "imposing a life sentence without parole on a juvenile who commits homicide, unless the homicide reflects the juvenile's irreparable corruption rather than the transient immaturity of youth." Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 479-80, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

White v. Premo

In order to impose a life sentence without parole on a juvenile who commits a homicide, the homicide must reflect the juvenile's "irreparable corruption rather than the transient immaturity of youth." Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 479-80, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Savinskiy

"[T]he purpose of the Article I, section 11, right is to ensure that a defendant charged with a crime has the benefit of an attorney's presence, advice, and expertise 'in any situation where the state may glean involuntary and incriminating evidence or statements for use in the prosecution of its case against defendant.'" State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or 16, 36, 376 P3d 255 (2016) (quoting State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Lien/Wilverding

If a state officer requests a private person to search a particular place or thing, and if that private person acts because of and within the scope of the officer’s request, then [Or Const] Article I, section 9, will govern the search. State v. Tucker, 330 Or 85, 90, 997 P2d 182 (2000)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Back to Top