- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 04-20-2022
- Case #: A172055
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Joyce, J. for the Court; Mooney, P.J. & DeVore, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed multiple convictions of fourth-degree assault, coercion, and strangulation committed against an intimate partner. The Court reviewed in detail the trial courts’ jury instruction on strangulation, nonunanimous jury instructions and verdicts, and denials of (2) motions to suppress evidence.The trial court allowed the State to object to Defendant’s jury instruction. Allowing the definition for strangulation to include, “could impede” to clarify that Defendant had “knowingly” impeded normal breathing of their partner. On appeal the Court found that the State’s instruction incorrectly applied ORS 161.085(8). This assignment of error was reversed and remanded.The State conceded Appellant’s nonunanimous jury instructions and verdicts to counts 5, 10, 11, and 14. Verdicts that were unanimous despite a nonunanimous instruction were harmless. The first disputed motion to suppress evidence was whether a search of Defendants hard drive, by an officer was proper if it was not completed within the statutory period. ORS 133.565(3) requires that a search warrant is executed within 5 days, not that it is completed. The second disputed motion to suppress evidence was also affirmed because probable cause existed, leading to the scope of discovery. Convictions on Counts 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; other-wise affirmed.