Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant kidnapped his victim as part of an effort to persuade her not to testify against one of his friends. The friend had terrorized, raped, and sodomized the victim, and the victim feared that the defendant would use a gun to harm her. As a result, a grand jury indicted defendant for, among other things, second-degree kidnapping. He waived his right to a jury, and the trial court convicted him of that crime in addition to several others. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether the state constitution required that the facts necessary to impose a dangerous offender sentence be found by the grand jury and pleaded in the indictment. The trial court held that it did not, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed, and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "Oregon v. Reinke" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that when he possessed the firearm in question, he was not a "person who has been convicted of a felony" within the meaning of the felon-in-possession statute. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had not declared defendant's conviction to be a misdemeanor in the original or a subsequent judgment of conviction by the time that defendant possessed the firearm in question. Accordingly, the Court rejected defendant's claim of error and affirm his conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. View "Oregon v. Stark" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several weapons-related charges based on his possession of loaded semiautomatic handguns and a knife in a public place within the city of Portland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court to review his convictions. The Court concluded that the ordinance enacted by the City of Portland was constitutional, and therefore affirmed. View "Oregon v. Christian" on Justia Law

Defendant Dean MacBale petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the trial court in his case to hold a public hearing to determine the admissibility of a rape victim's past sexual conduct, notwithstanding the state Rape Shield law. Defendant claimed that the victim made false allegations against him so that she could later bring a civil action against him for money damages. Defendant wanted to present evidence that the victim had a habit of falsely accusing men for later financial gain. Before his criminal trial, Defendant filed a motion under the Rape Shield law to determine the admissibility of the victim's conduct. The court granted the motion for a hearing, but denied making the hearing public in accordance with the Rape Shield Law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a hearing to determine admissibility of evidence under the Rape Shield Law does not constitute an "administration of justice" for the purposes of Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, and therefore, such hearing could be closed to the public. View "Oregon v. MacBale" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the admission of certain evidence following being held in contempt for violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. On appeal, defendant argued that the admission of a certificate of service at trial violated his right to confrontation under the state Constitution because the State did not establish the declarant was unable to testify. The trial court concluded the certificate was admissible; the appellate court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the out-of-court declaration made by the deputy sheriff who issued the certificate was not "witness" evidence that triggered defendant's constitutional rights; the certificate was an official record that the deputy was duty-bound to report, and it did not include investigative or gratuitous facts or opinions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial and appellate courts. View "Oregon v. Copeland" on Justia Law

The Oregon Supreme Court issued its decision in this case in January, 2013; that decision reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine. A few weeks later, defense counsel filed a petition for reconsideration, asking the court to reconsider and modify or reverse its decision or, at a minimum, to remand the case to the trial court for additional proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. In February 2013, defense counsel filed a notice pursuant to ORAP 8.45 informing the court that defendant had died more than a year before (on January 27, 2012), and contended therefore that the case was moot. Defense counsel also moved to vacate the Supreme Courts opinion and the judgment of conviction. Defense counsel argued that, because defendant's death rendered the case moot as of January 2012, the case necessarily was moot at the time this court issued its decision, and the appropriate disposition was to vacate that decision. Defense counsel further asserted that because: (1) the proper disposition of the case was to remand the case back to trial court for further proceedings; and (2) defendant's death meant that he could not take steps in the trial court to undo his conviction, the Supreme Court also should have vacated the judgment of conviction. The state opposed the motion to vacate, arguing that "the public interest in leaving the court's decision undisturbed far outweighs any equitable interests supporting vacatur." Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated its decision and the decision of the Court of Appeals and vacated defendant's judgment of conviction. View "Oregon v. Hemenway" on Justia Law

The issue presented to the Supreme Court in this case was the appeal of a final order of the Energy Facility Siting Council that approved an amended site certificate for construction of a wind energy facility. Specifically, the issue was whether, in approving the amended site certificate, the council correctly declined to require compliance with a recently adopted county ordinance requiring a two-mile setback between wind turbines and rural residences pursuant to ORS 469.401(2). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the council did not err in not requiring compliance with the ordinance. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the council did not err in denying petitioners' requests for a contested case proceeding. Therefore the council's final order approving the amended site certificate was affirmed. View "Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting" on Justia Law

In February 2005, the parties stipulated to a judgment dissolving their marriage. At that time, the parties had been married for seven years and had two minor children, then ages four and six. The judgment provided that the parties would have joint legal custody of their children, with mother having primary physical custody and father having reasonable parenting time. It also required that father pay child support of $1,750 per month, which exceeded by $8 the presumptively correct amount indicated by application of the Oregon Child Support Guidelines Formula (Child Support Formula). The judgment provided that neither party would seek modification of that support obligation. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether that stipulation could be enforced. And after review, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in enforcing the parties' nonmodification agreement in accordance with Oregon law. View "Matar v. Harake" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of Oregon law to the Oregon Supreme Court. They arose from an action for personal injury brought in federal district court against defendant Christopher Boyle and his employer, the City of Beaverton, for injuries that plaintiff Jean Howell suffered in an automobile collision with a police car that defendant Boyle drove. A jury found that plaintiff and Boyle were equally at fault and that plaintiff's damages totaled approximately $1 million. The trial court reduced the award by half, in accordance with the jury's findings of comparative fault. Defendants then moved to reduce the award further, to the $200,000 limit of the then-current Oregon Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the application of the statutory limitation would have violated the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. Defendants appealed, and the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions: (1) is plaintiff's negligence action constitutionally protected under the Oregon Constitution's remedy clause irrespective of the jury's finding of comparative negligence?; and (2) if plaintiff's action is protected, is $200,000 an unconstitutional emasculated remedy despite the jury's finding of comparative negligence? The Oregon Supreme Court addressed the second question only, because its answer was dispositive: "[e]ven assuming for the sake of argument that, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff's negligence action is constitutionally protected by Article I, section 10, the $200,000 limitation on her recovery is constitutionally permissible. Under this court's case law, the constitution requires that any remedy that remains after the imposition of a modern limitation on it be 'substantial.' In this case, the $200,000 judgment that plaintiff received satisfies that constitutional requirement." View "Howell v. Boyle" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, defendant Alex Kalugin moved for a defense medical examination pursuant to ORCP 44 A. Plaintiff Paul Lindell, Jr. objected on the ground that he would not submit to such an examination without being allowed to bring a friend, family member, or counsel with him. The trial court declined to impose the discovery condition that Lindell requested. Lindell then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to permit the examination only on condition that he be allowed to bring with him a friend, family member, or counsel. The Court issued an alternative writ directing the trial court to permit Lindell to have legal counsel present as an observer at the examination or, in the alternative, to show cause for not doing so. In a letter opinion, the trial court respectfully informed the Supreme Court that it would not modify its order and explained its reasoning for that conclusion. In response, Lindell requested that the Supreme Court enter a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to allow a third-party observer. For the reasons that follow, the Supreme Court declined Lindell's request for a peremptory writ and dismiss the alternative writ of mandamus: "we cannot say that the court failed to exercise its discretion or that it exercised its discretion in a manner that was outside the range of choices that the law permits." View "Lindell v. Kalugin" on Justia Law