Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father challenged a juvenile court’s order requiring him to undergo a psychological evaluation and follow its recommendations. ORS 419B.387 authorized a juvenile court, following an evidentiary hearing, to “order [a] parent to participate in the treatment or training” that “is needed by [the] parent to correct the circumstances that resulted in wardship or to prepare the parent to resume the care of the ward” and that “is in the ward’s best interests.” Father contended the psychological evaluation did not qualify as “treatment” and that, even if it did, it was not “needed” by father. Thus, the issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Courr’s review centered on the meaning of those terms in ORS 419B.387 and whether that statute authorized the juvenile court to order the psychological evaluation here. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court’s order was authorized under ORS 419B.387. View "Dept. of Human Services v. F. J. M." on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Ralston was arrested, booked, and charged by district attorney’s information with misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and reckless driving. Five days later, the prosecutor dismissed the misdemeanor charges to investigate whether defendant had predicate convictions that would have elevated the charge to felony DUII. Six weeks later, a grand jury indicted defendant on a charge of felony DUII. By that time, video footage from the jail on the night that defendant was arrested and booked had been overwritten automatically. When defense counsel later learned that the booking video had been overwritten, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that his right to a speedy trial under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution had been violated, arguing that his inability to use the video of his booking at trial was prejudicial to him. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which held defendant did not establish prejudice resulting from the delay so as to warrant dismissal of the charges against him. The trial court judgment was affirmed in part and remanded to that court for further proceedings. View "Oregon v. Ralston" on Justia Law

Relator petitioned for a restraining order against her husband (respondent) under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700-107.735. During a hearing on her petition, relator offered as exhibits six videos from a dash-mounted camera in the parties’ car in connection with an alleged incident of abuse. One of the videos showed relator speaking on a cell phone to a “certified advocate.” That video exhibit was offered to support relator’s testimony about her fear for her physical safety. Relator also indicated that she had sometimes texted that advocate. Respondent requested production of the entire memory card from the dash-mounted camera, as well as “[a]ll correspondence, memoranda, e-mail, text messages, recordings of any kind, and any other documents from any advocate assisting [relator] in this case to [relator] or from [relator to her] advocate relating to the alleged events in this case.” Relator refused to produce those items, arguing, as relevant here, that respondent’s request for the entire memory card violated ORCP 36 because it was oppressive, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and was not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Relator also argued that her communications with her certified advocate were privileged under OEC 507-1. Relator petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court’s discovery order, and concurrently moved for a stay of the discovery order at the trial court. The trial court denied the stay, citing OEC 507-1(3), which limited the applicability of the certified advocate-victim privilege in certain circumstances. Relator continued to refuse to produce the memory card and her communications with her advocate, and, on respondent’s motion, the trial court dismissed the FAPA proceeding as a sanction. The Supreme Court determined the trial court was presented with “no meritorious argument to support compelling production.” Without such an argument, and with no alternative explanation from the court for its ruling, the Supreme Court found the court’s order to produce the memory card was legally unsupported and therefore could not stand. Mandamus relief was granted. View "I. H. v. Ammi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Gregory Chaimov made a public records request in July 2018, seeking copies of completed request forms used by state agencies to propose legislation for the 2019 legislative session. Individual state agencies had completed approved blank forms and then submitted them to the Oregon Department of Legislative Services (DAS) for the Governor to decide whether to request that the Office of Legislative Counsel prepare draft bills. The issue presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review was whether completed request forms from the Office of Legislative Counsel were subject to disclosure under Oregon’s Public Records Law. DAS contended the requested forms fell within the attorney-client privilege under OEC 503 and were thus exempted from disclosure under ORS 192.355 (9)(a). The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, holding that the request forms were not exempt and ordering their disclosure. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that they were subject to the attorney-client privilege. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the suspension of petitioner’s driver’s license for refusing a breath test was valid when, in addition to providing petitioner with the statutorily required information regarding rights and consequences, the arresting officer also told petitioner that she would seek a search warrant for a blood draw if petitioner refused the test. The Department of Transportation, Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) suspended petitioner’s driving privileges, but, after petitioner sought judicial review from the circuit court, the circuit court set aside that suspension, a decision that the Court of Appeals later affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that DMV properly suspended petitioner’s driving privileges, therefore reversing the Court of Appeals’ and the circuit court’s judgments. View "Murdoch v. DMV" on Justia Law

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