Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In consolidated ballot-title review cases, three sets of electors-- petitioner Wilhelms, petitioners Wise, Mason, and Selvaggio (Wise petitioners), and petitioners Delk, Gladstone, and Kafoury (Delk petitioners)—challenged the Oregon Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 9 (2024) (IP 9). If adopted, IP 9 would effect various changes to Oregon’s campaign-finance and elections-related laws. Currently, federal and state law required some reporting of campaign contributions and certain disclosures in political advertising. However, state law imposed no limits on campaign contributions. Among other things, IP 9 would limit the amounts of contributions that individuals could make to candidate committees and that candidate committees could accept from individuals and other candidate committees, it would add disclosure requirements for political advertisements (including requiring that advertisements disclose the four largest sources of funding), and it would establish a new enforcement system for elections-related violations (including violations of the new campaign-finance requirements). After review of the challenges, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that several of petitioners’ arguments that the ballot title did not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2) were well taken; the Court therefore referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. View "Wilhelms v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Gregg Lawrence sued defendant Oregon State Fair Council for negligence, alleging that defendant had failed “to supervise and maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner” so that guests walking on the property would not be injured. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result, the aluminum bleachers at a show that he attended with his wife and mother were wet and unsafe, causing him to fall and incur injuries. The trial court granted defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude certain evidence. During trial, at plaintiff’s request, the trial court reconsidered its ruling, but adhered to its decision to exclude the evidence. After a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its evidentiary ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that plaintiff had not done enough to preserve the issue of the admissibility of the challenged evidence. To this the Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination of that issue on its merits. View "Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council" on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs Roberta and Kevin Haas' stopped car was struck by a car driven by defendant Mark Carter. Plaintiffs brought this negligence action against defendants, Carter's estate and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeking to recover economic and noneconomic damages. Carter died after plaintiffs filed suit. State Farm was Roberta Haas' insurer, whom she sued for breach of contract, alleging it failed to pay all the personal injury protection benefits that were due. At trial, one of the primary issues was whether Carter’s driving was a cause-in-fact of the injuries that plaintiffs alleged, and the issue on appeal became whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on causation. The jury returned a verdict for defendants. After review, the Oregon Supreme Court determined the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on causation, and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter" on Justia Law

While interrogating defendant George Craigen about the murder at the heart of this case (for which defendant had not yet been charged with), detectives asked defendant about firearms crimes, which defendant had already been charged with in other cases and on which he was represented by counsel. After the State brought this murder case against defendant, defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation, including, evidence obtained as a result of the questioning about the firearms cases. Defendant argued that that questioning violated his right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and that all evidence resulting from the violation had to be suppressed. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, renewing the argument that he had made in the trial court. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant. The Oregon Supreme Court concurred with the Court of Appeals: because the detectives violated defendant’s right to counsel by questioning him about the Felon-In-Possession (FIP) charges on which he was represented, the State cannot use evidence obtained as a result of the violation of defendant's constitutional rights. View "Oregon v. Craigen" on Justia Law

Petitioner Reed Scott-Schwalbach sought review of the Oregon Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 5 (2024) (IP 5), contending that various aspects did not comply with the requirements for ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2). The proposal would create a constitutional right for parents to select any kindergarten-through-twelfth-grade (“K-12”) Oregon public school statewide, including any public charter school, for their children to attend throughout each school year, defined in the measure as a parent’s “chosen school.” Unless an exception set out in the measure applies, the chosen school district would be required to admit the child for enrollment in the chosen school. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complied with those requirements. The Court concluded that the caption, the “yes” result statement, and the summary had to be modified. View "Scott-Schwalbach v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The Oregon Department of Revenue assessed taxpayers $5,595 for deficient taxes, plus additional penalties and interest, for tax year 2013. Taxpayers first appealed that determination to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. While the case was pending there, the parties jointly moved to hold the proceedings in abeyance pending the outcome of an Internal Revenue Service audit reconsideration. The parties also entered into an agreement extending the limitation period for the department to make “any adjustment necessary to arrive at the correct amount of Oregon taxable income and Oregon tax liability.” The limitation period expired April 30, 2019, and no new or modified assessment was sent. After the Magistrate Division proceedings were reinstated, taxpayers contended that the extension agreement voided the original assessment, and so the absence of a new assessment meant the court should grant summary judgment in their favor. The department countered that the original assessment remained valid and in effect. The magistrate agreed with the department and denied taxpayers’ motion, and later denied taxpayers’ two motions for reconsideration. After taxpayers repeatedly refused to comply with the department’s request for production of documents, the department moved to dismiss. The magistrate granted that motion, and taxpayers appealed that decision by filing a complaint with the Tax Court Regular Division. Taxpayers’ complaint sought relief from the 2013 assessment of deficient income taxes, and included a motion by taxpayers to stay the statutory requirement to pay the deficiency, together with an affidavit regarding their finances to support their claim that payment would impose an undue hardship. The Tax Court ultimately dismissed taxpayers' appeal for failing to either pay the assessed income tax or show that doing so would constitute an undue hardship. Finding no error in that judgment, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Picker v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Defendant Deangelo Martin argued his due process rights were violated when the trial court ruled that hearsay evidence—a recording of the victim’s phone call to 9-1-1—was admissible to demonstrate that defendant had contacted the victim in violation of the terms of his probation. Defendant argued that the state did not show good cause for failing to produce the victim at the hearing, and that his confrontation right was thus violated. The trial court revoked probation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant argued on appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals erred in adopting a categorical rule that, in a probation revocation hearing, the admission of evidence covered by a “firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule always comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant contended the ordinary balancing test under Oregon v. Johnson (190 P3d 455, rev den, 345 Or 418 (2008)) should have applied, and that, under that test, his confrontation rights were violated. The Oregon Supreme Court concurred with the appellate court's result, but on different reasoning: the state made a strong showing of good cause under the third and fourth Johnson factors that outweighed defendant’s modest interest in confrontation as reflected by the first and second factors. Thus, the admission of the 9-1-1 recording at defendant’s probation revocation hearing did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment confrontation rights. View "Oregon v. Martin" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review centered on the effect of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020) in an appeal of a trial court’s rejection of a post-conviction petitioner’s challenge to convictions that were obtained through nonunanimous verdicts. Petitioner raised the issue as soon as Ramos was decided—but years after the challenged convictions had become final. The issue on appeal thus concerned the “retroactivity” of the constitutional rule announced in Ramos in a post-conviction proceeding under ORS 138.510 to 138.680. The Oregon Court held that when a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief on Sixth Amendment grounds, from a judgment of conviction which was based on a nonunanimous verdict and which became final before the Supreme Court’s Ramos decision issued, the petitioner was entitled to relief— assuming that none of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings Act were raised and sustained. "That is so because convicting a defendant on a nonunanimous jury verdict amounts to a 'substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction *** of petiioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States *** which denial rendered the conviction void,' for which post-conviction relief 'shall be granted.'” View "Watkins v. Ackley" on Justia Law

The trial court convicted defendant Heather Evans of initiating a false report based on evidence that she had triggered a police investigation by making a call and subsequent statements to the police that included both true and false allegations against another person. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal because much of what she had reported to the police had been true and there was no evidence that her false statements had resulted in any greater expenditure of police resources than would have resulted had she not made them. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant and reversed the judgment of conviction. The Oregon Supreme Court held the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal and that the Court of Appeals therefore erred in reversing on that ground. View "Oregon v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendant Anthony Delaney appealed his convictions on multiple sex offenses arising from two separate incidents, each involving a different victim. He challenged the trial court’s refusal to sever the counts involving the first incident from the counts involving the second incident. At issue was the proper application of ORS 132.560(3), which described actions that a trial court “may order” when “it appears, upon motion, that the state or defendant was substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses” that otherwise satisfy the requirements for joining multiple offenses. Defendant contended the State’s pretrial description of the evidence that it expected to offer demonstrated that defendant would be substantially prejudiced by a joint trial, and he contended that the prejudice that he identified required the court to sever the counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Oregon Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking severance under ORS 132.560(3) must identify a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice that was more than the prejudice that was inherent whenever joined charges allow the jury to hear that the defendant may have committed other bad acts. And whether a defendant has identified a case-specific theory that meets the “substantially prejudiced” standard was a question of law that the appellate court reviews without deference to the trial court. Applying those standards, the Supreme Court concluded defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to sever. View "Oregon v. Delaney" on Justia Law