State v. Hauskins

Under ORS 136.425, a confession without corroboration is insufficient to warrant a conviction. Secondly, the imposition of a punitive sanction for contempt is analogous enough to a criminal conviction that it carries a similar collateral consequence of stigma that will not be rendered moot because the sentenced incarceration was completed.

Defendant submitted a positive urine sample while on probation. After being told of the results, Defendant stated "Yes. I used." Based on the confession, Defendant was convicted of contempt of court under ORS 33.065 and 33.105(2). Defendant appealed arguing the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion of acquittal because his confession was not corroborated by any evidence. ORS 136.425 states "a confession only [is not] sufficient to warrant the conviction without some other proof that the crime has been committed." Though contempt is not a crime, Campbell states that punitive contempt proceedings enjoy the same statutory protections as criminal cases and therefore, ORS 136.425 applies. The Court found that the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the confession, and thus the conviction was improper. Secondly, the State argued that the appeal should be dismissed for mootness because the Defendant had already served the jail time and has been released from State custody. The Court held that the imposition of a punitive sanction for contempt is analogous enough to a criminal conviction that it carries a similar collateral consequence of stigma that will not be rendered moot because the sentenced incarceration was completed. Reversed.