Oregon Court of Appeals (10 summaries)
State v. Dickinson
In restitution cases, “the trial court [can] not simply rely on a review of [a victim’s medical bill] and ‘common sense’ to conclude that such charges were reasonable,” and the state is required to produce “additional testimony or evidence” to support that a medical bill is reasonable. State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 141, 372 P3d 614 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Cooper
“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more conditions of probation . . . .” OAR 213-010-0001.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Payne
When the trial court errs, the reviewing court is required to affirm the judgment of the trial court if, “there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Waldron
“A trial court may recommend conditions of PPS, but has no statutory authority to impose them.” State v. Reed, 235 Or App 470, 474, 237 P3d 826 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Nosbisch
Under ORS 137.106(5), “[i]f the defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution, the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue. . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Newsted
"[E]vidence is sufficient to support a conviction for delivery where it shows that the defendant possessed a controlled substance in an amount inconsistent with personal use and possessed items associated with the delivery of a controlled substance such as . . . cash, or drug records." See, e.g., State v. Fulmer, 105 Or App 334, 336-37, 804 P2d 515 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Walton
Pursuant to ORAP 5.45(1), the court has the “discretionary authority to review an unpreserved error that is plain . . . obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the face of the record.”
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Bentley v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office
“If the petitioner seeks relief from the bar on possessing or purchasing a firearm, relief shall be granted when the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner does not pose a threat to the safety of the public or the petitioner.” ORS 166.274(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Joling and Joling
"In summary, we hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of [partners] who have been living together in a non-marital domestic relationship, should distribute property based upon the express or implied contract of those parties." Beal and Beal, 282 Or 115, 122-23, 577 P2d 507 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. G. C. P.
“A direct comment on the credibility of a witness or a statement that is ‘tantamount’ to stating that another witness is truthful is not admissible, even if it is offered as part of a discussion of an admissible medical diagnosis.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 543, 354 P3d 680 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence