State v. Priester

“A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.” ORS 137.030(1). A probation condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if people with common intelligence would “necessarily guess at its meaning” or if it would “allow[] those who enforce it to do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.” State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618, 624, (2021).

Defendant appealed a probation provision that required him to “[d]isclose the nature of conviction to any domestic partner.” Defendant assigned error to the disclosure provision. Defendant argued that the provision was announced for the first time in the written judgment instead of in open court and that the provision was unconstitutionally vague. In response, the State argued that the term “DV package” was an acceptable shorthand phrase that satisfied the open court announcement requirement and that Defendant could ask his probation officer for clarification on the disclosure provision. “A criminal defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in open court.” ORS 137.030(1). A probation condition is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if people with common intelligence would “necessarily guess at its meaning” or if it would “allow[] those who enforce it to do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.” State v. Farris, 312 Or App 618, 624, (2021). The Court reasoned that “DV package” did not have a common meaning so it did not satisfy the open court announcement requirement. Further, the Court found that the provision was unconstitutionally vague because there were multiple differing definitions of “domestic partner” and the probation terms did not provide any clarification for which definition to use. Remanded for resentencing.