M. W. V. H. v. Van Hoff
To receive an SPO, the victim must show that it was “objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced.” ORS 30.866(1)(a),(b). Further, the conduct must have caused “reasonable apprehension,” referring to the victim’s own personal safety. ORS 30.866(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State v. Drumbor/Day
ORS 813.635(1) establishes that a notation requires that the installation and use of an IID remain on a diversion participant’s driving record until the participant presents a certificate which states that the IID didn’t record a negative report for 90 consecutive days.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Moore
After an amendment made in 2013, ORS 137.106 now “does not require the court to determine the amount of restitution or enter a restitution judgment within any specific time.” State v. Taylor, 300 Or App 626, 629-30, 455 P3d 609 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 493 (2020). Moreover, ORS 137.106(1)(a) allows the time for the prosecutor’s presentation of restitution information to be extended for “good cause.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ekloff v. Persson
Four Ramsey considerations a post-conviction court may review to determine whether to allow amendment are: “(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendments.” Eklof v. Persson, 307 Or App 585, 589 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Jones v. Willamette United Football Club
A permit application must be based upon “standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance” or other relevant county regulation. ORS 215.416(8)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Deshaw
A sex offender is required to report a change of residence within 10 days of that change; the term “‘change of residence’…refer[s] to the date of moving out of the current residence.” ORS 163A.010(3)(a)(B); State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 182 P3d 259 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Herfurth
“There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally. This Court has long explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice’ and incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390, 1397-98 (2020) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Kinstler
“[A] ‘proper occasion’ to give the statutory witness-false-in-part instruction exists when, considering the testimony and other evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, the trial court concludes that sufficient evidence exists for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely and that the false testimony concerns a material issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or 588, 468 P3d 445 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. McQueen
ORS 163.700 provides that “a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: [t]he person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture . . . without the consent of the other person; and the person being recorded has a reasonable exception of privacy concerning the intimate area.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davidson
“Nothing in the text of OAR 213- 008-0003(2) precludes its application to departure sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(2).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McNall
The court of appeal's role is not re-weighing evidence to determine guilt because as long as the rational factfinder could conclude the state proved all the elements of the crime, the judicial system gives the jury the responsibility to decide guilt. State v. Miller (A134139), 226 Or App 52, 55 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pierce
Under OEC 611, a trial court may exercise discretion to “reasonably control the presentation of evidence” but that discretion is not fundamentally fair if the court “effectively prevent[s] a party from presenting his or her case.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence