Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in February 2024

State v. Biggs

"Testimony by a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient to authenticate evidence. OEC 901(2)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Cassidy

“Business facility” is a term that can be broadly construed to encompass real property that is used by and is necessary for the operation of a particular business venture.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Tayborne

To establish that a defendant is not licensed or privileged to enter premises not open to the public when the defendant has been permitted or invited to enter, the state must prove two elements: (1) The person extending the permission or invitation lacked actual authority to do so, and (2) the defendant knew or believed that the person lacked such authority. State v. Hartfield, 290 Or 583, 595, 624 P2d 588 (1981).

[E]ntering a building to commit a crime is not burglary if the person has permission to be in the building. State v. McLaughlin, 317 Or App 596, 607, 505 P3d 1088 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.

“In a case where a Final Order is issued following a Recommended Order, a petition for reconsideration should be limited to: ‘A claim of factual error.’” OAR 115-010-0100(3)(c)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Brockway

“In reviewing the denial of a motion for continuance, we determine the propriety of the motion by examining the circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time that it denied the request.” State v. Stull, 281 Or App 662, 667 (2016). “If the trial court’s decision ‘is within the range of legally correct choices and produces a permissible, legally correct outcome, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.’” State v. Ferraro, 264 Or App 271, 281 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. C. A. C.

ORS 426.005(1)(f)(a) allows for civil commitment of someone who, because of a mental disorder, is dangerous to themselves or others.

The standard is defined by a highly probable threat of future harm that requires threatening statements to be accompanied by some overt act. State v. J.P., 295 Or App 228, 234, 433 P3d 452 (2018).The burden is clear and convincing evidence. State v. M.G., 296 Or App 714, 718, 440 P3d 123 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Carter

A trial court errs if it gives a jury instruction that is at odds with a general rule of Oregon law or inconsistent with a specific application of that rule in prior Oregon case law. Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLC, 57 Or 333, 347-48, 353 P3d 563 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Dikeos

Evidence that possessed an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and was of such a nature that it might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense was material, exculpatory evidence and would thus implicate a defendant’s due process rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Page

“In civil cases involving temporary damage to real property, the appropriate measure of damage is the total cost of restoring the property to its original condition.” McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 390-91 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Page

Restitution may be ordered when it is reasonably foreseeable that the damages were "the kind of harm to which a defendant may be held liable." State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 595, 368 P3d 446 (2016).

The appropriate calculation of damages to real property is the cost to return the property to its original state. McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 82 P3d 1043 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Postlethwait

“OEC 803(25), [] authorizes the admission of certain documents containing out-of-court statements, while providing that ‘the defendant may subpoena’ the declarant at no cost. That language impermissibly shifted the responsibility to secure the declarant’s attendance at trial to defendant, which is directly at odds with defendant’s right to confront her accusers and to ‘meet the witnesses face to face.’ Or Const, Art I, § 11.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. R. D. M.

The timing requirement in ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the state to present its restitution evidence ‘prior to or at the time of adjudication’.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. McCombs

A defendant’s statement can only be used to corroborate the defendant’s confession if it is made for some other purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it not so closely related to the confession as to become part of it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Thompson

(1) ORS 161.485(2) provides “[a] person shall not be convicted of more than one [attempt] offense . . . for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” The application of ORS 161.485 is “akin to merger,” because a defendant can be guilty of “multiple inchoate crimes pertaining to a single substantive offense but cannot have more than one such conviction entered.” State v. Kimbrough, 364 Or 66, 73, 431 P3d 76 (2018). (2) ORS 161.067(1), provides that guilty verdicts may not merge if “the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not.” The difference between first-degree robbery and second-degree robbery is that first-degree robbery requires more than second-degree robbery, preventing a downward merger into second-degree robbery. See State v. Burris, 270 Or App 512, (2015). (3) An error is plain when, among other thing, it is “obvious and not reasonable in dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top