Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Michael Burris was convicted of attempting to commit the misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm. The issue his appeal presented for the Oregon Supreme Court was the legal effect, if any, of a cross-reference between two statutes that criminalized the same conduct: possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony. The first statute, ORS 166.270, defined the felony offense of felon in possession of a firearm. The second statute, ORS 166.250, defined the misdemeanor offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. The statute defining the felony offense included an exception for certain persons discharged from imprisonment, parole, or probation at least 15 years earlier. The statute defining the misdemeanor offense did not include a similar exception, but it began with a prefatory clause that cross-referenced other statutes, including the felony offense. The question was whether the 15-year exception to the felony offense also applied to the misdemeanor offense through the latter’s prefatory clause. The state argued the prefatory clause’s reference to ORS 166.270 had no legal effect because, by its terms, the 15-year exception to the felony offense applied only to the felony offense and therefore did not create an exception to the misdemeanor offense. To this, the Oregon Supreme Court concurred and affirmed the trial court. View "Oregon v. Burris" on Justia Law

In a 20-count indictment, defendant Nathan Chitwood was accused of sexually abusing his then-13-year-old stepdaughter. A jury acquitted defendant of all but three counts. Defendant appealed his convictions, contending that the prosecutor made two highly improper statements during the rebuttal closing argument. Defendant did not object to either of those statements, but, on appeal, he argued that the prosecutor’s argument was so prejudicial that the trial court judgment should be overturned on plain error review. The Court of Appeals agreed the prosecutor’s statements were improper, but it declined to conduct plain error review, reasoning the prosecutor’s argument was not so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial and that there was a possibility that defense counsel’s failure to object was strategic. The Oregon Supreme Court found the prosecutor’s argument constituted plain error: the statements were impermissible and, taken together, were so egregious that they deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to review that error and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Oregon v. Chitwood" on Justia Law

Defendant Darius Thompson robbed someone with a knife, and the victim shot defendant. Defendant sought treatment in a hospital, where police officers questioned him. An officer seized defendant’s cell phone as likely containing evidence of the shooting and other crimes. The officer did so without a warrant, fearing that, if he did not seize the phone, defendant could otherwise destroy the phone or its contents. Police kept the phone for five days before applying for a warrant to seize and search the phone. Once they had the warrant, police searched the phone and found records of calls and messages related to the robbery and shooting. They then used that information in questioning defendant, eliciting statements that defendant argued were incriminating. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the phone and all derivative evidence, and the trial court denied the motion. A jury found defendant guilty of first-degree robbery, among other crimes, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the resulting conviction. The Oregon Supreme Court's review of this case was limited to issues raised by the motion to suppress, including preservation questions at trial and on appeal. The State conceded, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it did not need to consider three statements defendant claimed should have been suppressed because he identified them only in his reply brief to the appeals court, and not in his opening brief. The Supreme Court also found defendant adequately raised and preserved his objection to the admission of evidence derived from the seizure of his cell phone, which the Supreme Court found police holding it for five days without a warrant was unreasonable and unlawful. Errors notwithstanding, the Supreme Court determined the evidence that should have been suppressed did not prejudice defendant, and therefore his conviction was affirmed. View "Oregon v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant John Shedrick walked into a bar and sat at a video poker machine near the ATM the bar maintained for customers. The bar’s owner was about to refill the ATM and placed a bundle of currency on top of it. Within two or three seconds, while the owner turned around to greet a patron who had entered the bar, defendant took the bundle of money, placed it in his jacket pocket, and walked toward the door. A bar patron saw defendant take the bundle and stopped him before he could leave. Defendant was ultimately convicted of first-degree theft. As defined in ORS 164.055(1)(a), the offense requires the State to prove, among other things, that the “total value of the property” stolen in the transaction “is $1,000 or more.” The issue on review was whether proof of a culpable mental state concerning the “value of the property” element was required. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with the state that none was required; Defendant argued the jury should have been instructed that the state had to prove his culpable mental state—at least criminal negligence—concerning the value of the money taken. The Oregon Supreme Court held that in order to prove first-degree theft, the state must prove the defendant’s culpable mental state with respect to the value of the property stolen and that the trial court erred in failing to give the requested instructions. However, the Court concluded the error was harmless and, therefore, affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and the trial court’s judgment of conviction. View "Oregon v. Shedrick" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review stemmed from the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief filed by a petitioner who was a fugitive from justice while his criminal case was pending in the trial court. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition on the basis that petitioner’s flight from justice, which ultimately delayed his sentencing by 10 years, would impair the State’s ability to present witness testimony in any retrial that the post-conviction court might order. Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked whether the common-law “fugitive dismissal rule” should have been extended to post-conviction cases filed by former fugitives. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "even if a petitioner’s former fugitive status might sometimes justify a post-conviction court refusing to carry out the statutorily prescribed post-conviction relief process, we conclude that the court’s concerns in this case—about delay-based prejudice to the state in any retrial—did not justify dismissal of petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief." View "Sills v. Oregon" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon certified two questions of law to the Oregon Supreme Court. Plaintiff, through a conservator, brought this action after he suffered catastrophic brain damage at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend. Plaintiff alleged that those injuries were caused by the failure of defendants— Jefferson County, Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff Anderson, and Warm Springs Police Department Officer Aryanfard— to respond to an earlier report of child abuse in the manner that Oregon law required. Specifically, plaintiff alleged he had suffered abuse from the boyfriend a month earlier, that medical personnel had reported those injuries to defendants, and that defendants had negligently failed to take certain actions required by Oregon statutes that governed the reporting of child abuse. Plaintiff also alleged a claim under Oregon’s Vulnerable Person Act, ORS 124.100-124.140, which created a statutory private right of action for enhanced damages against a person who has caused, or “permitt[ed] another person to engage in,” financial or physical abuse of a vulnerable person. Before any litigation of plaintiff’s factual allegations, the parties identified two unresolved questions about the meaning of the Oregon statutes on which plaintiff had based his claims, and the district court certified two questions: (1) whether a claim for Abuse of a Vulnerable Person under ORS § 124.100 et seq., was available against public bodies; and (2) whether a violation of Oregon’s mandatory child abuse reporting law serve as a basis for statutory liability. With respect to Oregon’s Vulnerable Person Act, the Supreme Court concluded that a claim under that act was available against a public body, through the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), when the claim is based on the acts or omissions of officers, employees, or agents of the public body acting within the scope of their employment or duties. With respect to the "statutory liability," the Court concluded that the Oregon legislature did not intend to create a statutory private right of action to address violations of the duties that the child-abuse-reporting statutes plausibly may have imposed on defendants in this case: duties that apply to law enforcement agencies that have received, and personnel who are investigating, an existing report of child abuse. View "E. J. T. v. Jefferson County" on Justia Law

In September 2017, Klamath County Animal Control impounded 22 dogs, three horses, and seven chickens from Petitioner Kenneth Hershey’s property. The state subsequently charged Hershey with three counts of second-degree animal neglect, one count for each type of animal. under ORS 167.347. As relevant here, that statute provides that, when an animal is being held by an animal care agency pending the outcome of a criminal action for mistreatment of the animal, a district attorney, acting on behalf of the animal care agency, may file a petition in the criminal action asking the circuit court to order the forfeiture of the animal unless the defendant in the criminal action (or another person with a claim to the animal) pays a security deposit or bond to cover the agency’s costs of caring for the animal. The question presented for the Oregon Supreme Court by this case was whether, under Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution, a party has a right to a jury trial in a proceeding brought under ORS 167.347. The circuit court ruled that a party did not have such a right. The Court of Appeals affirmed, in a divided opinion. The Supreme Court concurred with the lower court decisions and affirmed. View "Oregon v. Hershey" on Justia Law

Defendant Zachary Carlisle challenged his conviction for misdemeanor third-degree sexual abuse, which required the state to prove that he “subject[ed] another person to sexual contact” and that “[t]he victim d[id] not consent to the sexual contact.” The question this case raised for the Oregon Supreme Court's review was which culpable mental state applied to the “victim does not consent” element of the offense. The trial court instructed the jury that the State needed to prove that defendant “knowingly” subjected the victim to sexual contact and that defendant was “criminally negligent” with respect to the fact that the victim did not consent to the sexual contact. According to defendant, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that both elements required proof of a “knowing” mental state. The Supreme Court concluded, however, that the legislature did not intend that a conviction under ORS 163.415 would require proof that the defendant knew that the victim did not consent to the sexual contact. Accordingly, the trial court did not err, and defendant's convictions were affirmed. View "Oregon v. Carlisle" on Justia Law

Relator Randy Gray was the defendant charged in 2021 by a district attorney’s information with (among other things) the felony of assaulting a public safety officer. Shortly after the information was filed, relator’s defense counsel notified the district attorney that relator intended to appear as a witness before the expected grand jury proceeding. In addition to giving notice that relator would exercise his statutory right to appear, relator’s counsel later emailed the district attorney, expressing relator’s desire to have his counsel present in the grand jury room and asserting that he had a right to the presence of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district attorney did not agree to counsel being in the grand jury room. A trial court denied relator’s motion, ruling that relator’s exercise of his statutory right to appear before the grand jury did not entitle him to have his counsel present in the room with him, but that counsel could wait outside and be available for consultation. Relator then filed this proceeding, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant his motion. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded on the facts presented here, Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution entitled relator to have his counsel present in the grand jury room during his testimony. View "Oregon v. Gray" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas Lowell provided piano tuning services to defendant Medford School District and assisted in producing concerts performed in defendant’s facilities. While providing production assistance for a particular concert, plain- tiff noticed an echo near the stage. He complained to the school theater technician, Stephanie Malone, and, later, feeling that Malone had not adequately responded, he followed up with her. Malone reported to her supervisor that plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated, that he “smelled of alcohol,” and that “this was not the first time.” The supervisor repeated Malone’s statements to a district support services assistant. The assistant sent emails summarizing Malone’s statements to three other district employees, including the supervisor of purchasing. The assistant expressed concerns that appearing on district property under the influence of alcohol violated district policy and the terms of plaintiff’s piano tuning contract. Plaintiff brought this defamation action against Malone, the supervisor and assistant, later substituting the School district for the individual defendants. Defendant answered, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, including the one at issue here: that public employees are entitled to an absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in the course and scope of their employment. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on that basis. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, finding that defendant as a public employer, did not have an affirmative defense of absolute privilege that entitled it to summary judgment. View "Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C" on Justia Law