Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Alex Aguirre-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to several crimes that resulted in damage to the victim’s truck. After the state presented evidence of a repair bill paid by the victim’s insurer, the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution for the full amount of that bill, pursuant to ORS 137.106. Defendant appealed, arguing that the restitution award was not supported by sufficient evidence to prove that the amount charged had been reasonable. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant and reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the amount that the victim’s insurer paid for repairs was reasonable. The trial court therefore did not err in entering the restitution award. View "Oregon v. Aguirre-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review in this criminal case to consider whether the trial court correctly allowed the state to impeach defendant’s testimony with evidence that defendant previously had been convicted of second-degree assault. Defendant Frank Phillips was originally convicted on that crime in 1994, as well as other, more serious crimes arising out of an incident in 1993. In 2007, while still serving his prison sentence for the 1994 convictions, defendant successfully challenged those convictions through a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court vacated all of defendant’s 1994 convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, at which point the Department of Corrections released him from confinement. On retrial, in 2008, defendant again was convicted of second-degree assault, for which he was sentenced to a period of 36 months’ incarceration. But defendant was acquitted on retrial of the more serious charges that had been the basis for his lengthy original prison sentence. As a result, the judgment of conviction following retrial specified that defendant’s 36-month sentence for the second-degree assault “is served,” and the Department of Corrections issued a certificate specifying that defendant had an “Adjusted Calculated Release Date” of May 1996. In this case, defendant was charged with assault and strangulation arising out of an altercation with a neighbor. At the start of defendant’s trial, he advised the court that he planned to testify, and he urged the court to rule that evidence of his prior second-degree assault conviction would not be admissible under OEC 609. Defendant argued the operative date of his prior conviction was 1994, and that the operative date of his release from confinement for that conviction was 1996, meaning that the conviction should have been excluded because both dates fell outside of the OEC 609(3)(a) window of admissibility. The trial court disagreed and ruled that the state could offer evidence of the conviction as impeachment. The Court of Appeals concluded the date of defendant’s conviction on retrial supplied “the date of the conviction” for purposes of OEC 609’s 15-year window of admissibility and, accordingly, that the trial court correctly allowed evidence of that conviction to impeach defendant’s testimony. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed. View "Oregon v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The State charged defendant Daezhar Banks with harassment based on an incident at a mobile phone store. Before trial, the State provided defendant with a video from the store’s security system, but the video did not show the alleged harassment. During voir dire, the prosecutor told the prospective jurors, over defense counsel’s objections, that “the rules of evidence” limited what she could present to the jury, that “some things are not going to come into the trial today,” and that the jury was “not going to have all the facts.” In support of his objections, defense counsel argued that the prosecutor’s statements implied “that there’s more video, but for some reason that video didn’t get to come in by the rules of evidence.” Defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it should not assume that “the rules of evidence have precluded any evidence at this point.” The court denied defense counsel’s request. During the trial, defense counsel disputed that defendant had committed the alleged harassment and argued, among other things, that, although the store had three security cameras and one of its employees had testified that the cameras would have captured the full incident, the state had failed to produce video of the alleged harassment. During deliberations, the jury sent questions to the court, asking if the prosecutor knew whether there was video of the alleged harassment and, if so, whether the prosecutor was required to show it at trial. The court responded by telling the jury that it had been “provided the admit- ted evidence in this case” and that the court was “unable to provide further response.” The jury found defendant guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by overruling defense counsel’s objections and denying his requested jury instruction. The Oregon Supreme Court concurred with defense counsel, and ruled that the trial court's error was not harmless. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Oregon v. Banks" on Justia Law

Both relator Michael Ross and the State asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it could acquit defendant by a vote of 10-to-2. The trial court concluded that, in the wake of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), any verdict on serious criminal charges - whether to convict or to acquit - must be unanimous, and the court informed the parties that it would instruct the jury accordingly. Relator contended that, although the Supreme Court’s holding in Ramos would render a nonunanimous guilty verdict in his trial unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, that holding did not affect the viability of Oregon law - specifically, Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.450 - authorizing a nonunanimous not-guilty verdict. To this the Oregon Supreme Court agreed with relator and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to instruct the jury that Oregon law required a unanimous guilty verdict for all charges and permits a not-guilty verdict by a vote of 11-to-1 or 10-to-2. View "Oregon v. Ross" on Justia Law

In connection with a criminal prosecution for delivery of methamphetamine, a trial court ordered defendant Catrice Pittman to unlock a password-protected cell phone that was found in her purse. Defendant resisted, contending the order would violate her right against self-incrimination. The trial court concluded the order was lawful and held defendant in contempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt judgment. Although the Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the State that there were circumstances in which such an order would not violate the Constitution, the trial court record did not conduct the necessary factfinding to allow the Supreme Court to conclude those circumstances were present here. Accordingly, judgment was reversed. View "Oregon v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Defendant David Skillicorn, III was charged with first-degree criminal mischief, among other crimes. The state’s theory regarding the charge was that, after a disagreement with his girlfriend, defendant intentionally drove a truck into her car. Defendant admitted he hit the car, but claimed he had done so accidentally. Specifically, he claimed the truck had malfunctioned and that he lost control of it. To rebut that claim, the state sought to introduce evidence that, after a prior disagreement with his girlfriend, defendant had driven recklessly. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court admitted the evidence. The state used the evidence to argue that, when defendant “gets angry, he acts out,” and that, therefore, the jury should find that, on the night of the charged crimes, defendant had acted out by intentionally damaging his girlfriend’s car. The jury convicted defendant of first-degree criminal mischief and other crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court's admission of the evidence of his prior driving was not admissible "to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." The state argued that the evidence was admissible under the “doctrine of chances,” as applied in Oregon v. Johns, 725 P2d 312 (1986). The Court of Appeals observed that the evidence appeared to be propensity evidence, which was prohibited by OEC 404(3), but concluded that it was admissible under Johns. The Oregon Supreme Court concurred with the appeals court that the evidence was propensity evidence, but that it was inadmissible. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Oregon v. Skillicorn" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review in this case was whether ordinary first-class mail is, or can be, a “class of delivery calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days.” Defendant was convicted on driving while suspended and for failing to register her vehicle. Wishing to appeal that judgment and acting without legal representation, defendant sent a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court Administrator by first-class mail. Defendant certified that the “method of filing” she had used for her notice was “United States Postal Service, ordinary first class mail.” A postage validation imprint (PVI) label on the envelope showed that petitioner had submitted her notice of appeal to the United States Post Office (USPS) for mailing on Monday, July 9, 2018, the last day of the applicable appeals period. The Appellate Court Administrator received defendant’s notice of appeal two days later, on Wednesday, July 11, 2018. The notice was forwarded to the Appellate Commissioner, who concluded that it was untimely and issued an order dismissing defendant’s appeal on that ground. The Court of Appeals majority concluded that first-class mail could, in no circumstances, be such a class of delivery and therefore, a notice of appeal that had been dispatched by first-class mail on the last day of the appeals period and received by the court two days later was untimely - requiring dismissal of the underlying appeal. The Supreme Court rejected the appellate majority’s analysis and conclusion, and also rejected an alternative theory for dismissing the appeal that was raised in a concurring opinion - a supposed failure to comply with proof-of-mailing-date requirements in ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) and (1)(b). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the appeal was reversed and the matter remanded to that court for further proceedings. View "Oregon v. Chapman" on Justia Law

The issue before the Oregon Supreme Court in this matter was whether defendant Zackery Chorney-Phillips' conviction should be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), which held that only a unanimous jury can find a defendant guilty of a serious crime. Defendant was charged with first- and second-degree custodial interference and was found guilty on both counts by a twelve-person jury. At trial, which occurred before the Supreme Court’s Ramos decision, the court instructed the jury that “[t]en or more jurors must agree on your verdict,” and defendant did not object to that jury instruction. After the jury returned its verdict, on a form that contained no indication of how individual jurors voted, the trial court polled the jury at defendant’s request. All jurors indicated they concurred with the verdict. For purposes of sentencing, the court merged the jury’s two guilty verdicts into one conviction for first-degree custodial interference, and then entered judgment. Defendant appealed, arguing the nonunanimous jury instruction was a structural error, which always required reversal. In addition, defendant argued the erroneous instruction required reversal under the federal harmless error standard because the poll of the jury was insufficient to establish the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The State did not dispute the instruction was given in error, but it argued the error was harmless because each of defendant’s convictions was based on a unanimous verdict. The State also argued defendant’s acceptance of the jury poll prevented him from challenging the adequacy of the jury poll on appeal. The Oregon Supreme Court ultimately determined it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to review defendant's unpreserved assignment of error as plain error; judgment was therefore affirmed. View "Oregon v. Chorney-Phillips" on Justia Law

The issue before the Oregon Supreme Court in this matter was whether defendant Peter Ciraulo's conviction should be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), which held that only a unanimous jury can find a defendant guilty of a serious crime. Defendant was charged with first-degree forgery, possession of a forged instrument, and third-degree theft. Defendant was tried before a twelve-person jury, in a trial that occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos. Before trial, defendant requested that the jury be instructed that it needed to be unanimous in order to return a conviction. The trial court denied defendant’s request, stating: “[U]ntil the Court of Appeals tells me otherwise, I’ll continue to comply with the law that requires the ten-person verdict in felony cases.” After deliberation, the jury found defendant guilty of all three counts. After receiving the verdict form, the trial court asked the presiding juror whether the jury’s decision had been unanimous, and the presiding juror confirmed that it had been. The trial court asked defendant whether there was any need to poll the jury further, and defense counsel responded that there was not. To the Oregon Supreme Court, defendant argued that Ramos required his convictions be reversed: (1) the nonunanimous jury instruction was a structural error, which always required reversal; and (2) even if the error is subject to a harmlessness analysis, the poll of the jury is insufficient to establish that the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court concluded that, although the jury instruction permitting nonunanimous verdicts was erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to all of the verdicts in this case. Judgment was affirmed. View "Oregon v. Ciraulo" on Justia Law

The issue before the Oregon Supreme Court in this matter was whether defendant Michael Dilallo's conviction should be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), which held that only a unanimous jury can find a defendant guilty of a serious crime. Defendant was charged with delivery of methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit delivery of methamphetamine. He entered a plea of not guilty. Both charges were tried to a twelve-person jury in 2018, before the Ramos decision. At trial, consistent with Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the jury was instructed that it could convict him without reaching unanimity. Defendant did not object to that jury instruction, and the record did not reveal whether the jury’s guilty verdicts were unanimous. Defendant argued that, although he did not preserve an objection to the erroneous jury instruction, the Oregon Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to review the trial court's error. Because of the absence of a jury poll, the Oregon Court concluded it was not appropriate to consider defendant’s unpreserved assignment of error; therefore defendant’s judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Oregon v. Dilallo" on Justia Law