State v. Bollet

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 06-04-2025
  • Case #: A181096
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J.; Lagesen, C.J.; Hellman, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 136.433 “exclusively governs the process for stipulating to previous convictions when the state alleges in the accusatory instrument that the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense.” A stipulation that fails to satisfy ORS 136.433(1) does not relieve the state of its burden of proof and may be presented to the jury as evidence of the prior-conviction element. State v. Bollet, 341 Or App 1 (2025).

Defendant appealed a conviction for misdemeanor driving while using a mobile electronic device. Two prior convictions elevated the conduct from a traffic violation to a misdemeanor. Defendant stipulated to those convictions, but the trial court concluded that ORS 136.433(3) required presenting the stipulation to the jury. Defendant assigned error to that ruling, arguing that his stipulation conclusively established the convictions, which under Hess relieves the state of its burden to prove the existence of the prior convictions. State v. Hess, 342 Or 647, 662, 159 P3d 309 (2007). Thus, Defendant argues that admitting evidence of the prior convictions was error because they were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

State argued that the stipulation did not satisfy ORS 136.433(1) and therefore did not relieve State of its burden of proof. ORS 136.433 “exclusively governs the process for stipulating to previous convictions when the state alleges in the accusatory instrument that the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense.” State v. Bollet, 341 Or App 1 (2025). A stipulation that fails the requirements of ORS 136.433(1) does not relieve State of its burden to prove those convictions. The Court concluded that the statute displaced the framework Defendant relied on from Hess. Defendant’s stipulation lacked the required written jury waiver, substantive admissions, filing, and service. Thus, the convictions remained at issue, and the stipulation was admissible to prove them. The Court affirmed on that basis despite the trial court’s mistaken finding that the stipulation satisfied the statute. Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top