Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jonathan Rusen challenged the trial court’s imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration upon revoking defendant’s probation. Defendant was serving the sentence of probation pursuant to a plea agreement and had stipulated that, if the court revoked his probation, the court could impose consecutive terms of incarceration as sanctions. Defendant had reserved the right, however, to argue that any probation revocation sanctions should be run concurrently. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s challenge to the revocation sanction was reviewable and, on the merits, that the trial court lacked authority in this case to impose consecutive terms of incarceration following revocation of defendant’s probation. After review, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the legislature did not intend ORS 138.105(9) to bar review of challenges to “part of a sentence” when the parties reserved the right to make competing arguments regarding what the court should decide with respect to that part of the sentence. Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the court’s decision to impose consecutive terms of incarceration was reviewable. On the merits, the Supreme Court concluded that ORS 137.123(2) applied to initial sentencing and, therefore, was compatible with OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a), which applied when a court revokes probation. View "Oregon v. Rusen" on Justia Law

Two sets of electors who were dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s ballot title for Initiative Petition 34 (2022) (IP 34) petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review. IP 34 was directed at changing Oregon’s process for reapportioning legislative and congressional districts after each decennial census. Both petitions argued the ballot title did not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with some of the arguments raised in the petitions and, therefore, referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. View "Mason/Turrill v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

This case involved the State’s direct and interlocutory appeal of an omnibus pretrial order granting numerous defense motions to suppress evidence that the State obtained through wiretaps and search warrants. Defendant Langston Harris was charged with first-degree and second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, promoting prostitution, and other crimes. The murder charges arose from the death of RBH, who was shot outside of his apartment building in the early morning hours of September 20, 2017. The trial court ruled: (1) the wiretaps violated federal law because the applications did not indicate that the elected district attorney personally was even aware of the applications, and (2) roughly two dozen search warrants for cell phone data and social media accounts were invalid for multiple reasons, including that the warrants were overbroad and that, after excising from later warrant applications all information derived from the invalid earlier warrant(s), the State lacked probable cause to support the later warrants. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Oregon Supreme Court concurred and affirmed those rulings of the trial court. View "Oregon v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Bartlett requested the City of Portland to release three city attorney opinions and one legal memorandum. The parties agreed that the documents were public records, were within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and were more than 25 years old. The city declined to release the documents, arguing that they were exempt from the public records law because of the attorney-client privilege. The specific question presented for the Oregon Supreme Court’s consideration in this case was whether the four documents that were prepared more than 25 years ago by the Portland City Attorney for the mayor and two city commissioners and that were subject to the attorney-client privilege had to be disclosed under ORS 192.390. The Court concluded those documents had to be disclosed. View "City of Portland v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

During a single criminal episode, defendant Scott Kyger cut the necks of two people with a razor blade. For that conduct, the State charged him with, and he was convicted on two counts of attempted aggravated murder under ORS 163.095 (2015) and ORS 161.405 (2015). The question presented for the Oregon Supreme Court in this this case was whether the State charged a viable theory of attempted aggravated murder. Defendant contended that the existence of “more than one murder victim” was a circumstance that had to exist for a person to be guilty of aggravated murder; that it did not exist here because neither victim died; and that defendant’s intentional conduct did not amount to attempted aggravated murder because a person cannot “attempt” to commit a circumstance element of an offense. In defendant’s view, the allegations supported, at most, charges for attempted murder. The trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed with defendant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Oregon v. Kyger" on Justia Law

This case involved the definition of the term "impairment" in the context of Oregon's workers' compensation statutory scheme, and whether claimant Marisela Johnson’s loss of grip strength (that was determined to be caused in material part by an accepted, compensable condition and, in part, by a denied condition. Claimant contended that ORS 656.214 entitled an injured worker to compensation for the full measure of impairment due in material part to, and resulting in material part from, the compensable injury, including any impairment stemming from the denied condition, if applicable. SAIF Corporation disagreed, arguing that the definition of impairment did not include loss caused by a denied condition because it was not “due to” the “compensable industrial injury.” The Oregon Supreme Court concluded claimant was entitled to the full measure of her impairment. View "Johnson v. SAIF" on Justia Law

Defendant Billy Lee Oatney, Jr. was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death (Oatney I). During its initial investigation of the murder, the state gave defendant contractual use and derivative use immunity in exchange for providing information about the circumstances of the murder. The state then shared part of defendant’s immunized statement with an associate, Johnston. As a result, Johnston provided the state with additional information about the murder, pleaded guilty to the crime, and testified against defendant in his first trial for aggravated murder. Following defendant’s conviction and sentencing, and the Oregon Supreme Court’s affirmance of the judgment of conviction and sentence in Oatney I, he obtained post-conviction relief on the ground that his trial counsel had been inadequate for failing to move to suppress Johnston’s statements and testimony, which had derived from defendant’s immunized statement. The post-conviction court remanded the case for further proceedings. The State initiated retrial proceedings against defendant, and appealed a pretrial order that precluded it from calling “Johnston to present testimony that violates the immunity agreement of Defendant,” even if, “[w]ithin the limits of the law and the evidence presented,” defense counsel represents in opening statements that the evidence will show that Johnston or someone other than defendant committed the crime or argued in closing that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime. Defendant raised a cross- assignment of error, arguing that, if the Supreme Court reversed on direct appeal, it should also conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant would open the door to Johnston’s testimony by presenting evidence of Johnston’s judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in precluding the State from calling Johnston under the circumstances described in the order and, for that reason, did not address defendant’s cross- assignment. View "Oregon v. Oatney" on Justia Law

Petitioner Karlyn Eklof was convicted of aggravated intentional murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In this, her second case seeking post-conviction relief, petitioner moved to amend her complaint a third time to introduce new claims that the State unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence in petitioner’s criminal trial. The State presented evidence from the records of earlier cases involving the same murder, which purported to show that petitioner or her counsel knew about the allegedly withheld evidence and the possibility that it was withheld, and, therefore, reasonably could have raised her claims. After considering that evidence, the post-conviction court denied petitioner leave to amend her petition. Petitioner sought review by the Oregon Supreme Court, asking whether the merit of the proposed amendments, including whether they were procedurally barred, was relevant to determining whether to grant leave to amend under ORCP 23 A, and whether the post-conviction court erred in considering the State’s evidence. Because the State and post-conviction court identified no meaningful prejudice to the State resulting from petitioner’s proposed amendments, the post-conviction court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court, and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Eklof v. Persson" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Jackson was charged with and convicted of offenses that occurred during an encounter with police officers in an enclosed ATM vestibule. A surveillance video recorded the encounter and was admitted at trial as Exhibit 15. After the trial court entered the judgment of conviction, Exhibit 15 was lost or destroyed, and, in conjunction with his appeal to the Court of Appeals, defendant filed a motion seeking reversal and remand under ORS 19.420(3). The Appellate Commissioner denied defendant’s motion, concluding, as a matter of law, that the lost exhibit was not “necessary to the prosecution of the appeal.” The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, and, because the Oregon Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for review, held defendant’s appeal in abeyance. The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in summarily denying defendant’s motion before more fully analyzing the issues defendant raised on appeal and considering whether Exhibit 15 was necessary to resolve those issues. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to undertake that analysis. View "Oregon v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Jason Van Brumwell was convicted by jury on two counts of aggravated murder, for which he was sentenced to death. Defendant later brought a post-conviction relief action, and the post-conviction court ordered a new sentencing proceeding. While the post-conviction case was on appeal, the Oregon legislature enacted SB 1013, which, among other things, revised Oregon’s murder statutes to narrow the crimes that could be punished by death. Relevant here, under SB 1013, the form of murder alleged in Count 1 of defendant’s indictment, murder after having been convicted of aggravated murder previously, was classified as “murder in the first degree,” and the form of murder alleged in Count 2, murder committed while confined in a correctional facility, was classified as “murder in the first degree.” But a murder committed with both of those aggravating circumstances was now classified as “aggravated murder.” The parties agree that, because the post-conviction court ordered a new penalty-phase hearing that had yet to occur, SB 1013’s changes to the definitions of the different forms of murder applied to this case. But the parties disagreed about the effect of those changes. This case came before the Oregon Supreme Court on the State's motion to determine whether it could appeal the trial court order that granted defendant’s motion to preclude imposition of the death penalty and, if so, whether the appeal had to be brought to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the State could appeal the order, and that the appeal had to be brought to the Supreme Court. View "Oregon v. Brumwell" on Justia Law