Eklof v. Persson

Petitioner could not reasonably have raised Brady claims in the prior post-conviction proceeding. Accordingly, the Court held the Petitioner’s claims were not futile and the post-conviction court had abused its discretion in denying Petitioner leave to amend her complaint.

Petitioner appealed the post-conviction court’s denial of her third motion for leave to amend. The amendment introduced new claims that Respondent unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence (referred to as “Brady evidence”), related to Respondent’s witnesses. Pursuant to ORCP 23 A, after a pleading is amended once, further amendments require either the consent of the adverse party or leave of court. The State did not consent, and Petitioner had to rely on leave of court to allow for the amendment. Leave of court requires that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Petitioner assigned error for abuse of discretion regarding the denial of her motion under ORCP 23 A. In response, the Respondent argued that Petitioner’s proposed amendments were futile and futile amendments are statutorily barred under ORS 138.550(3). The Court found the record indicated that the Petitioner did not have knowledge of the alleged Brady evidence or withholding. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the petitioner could not reasonably have raised the Brady claims in the prior post-conviction proceeding. Accordingly, the Court held the Petitioner’s claims were not futile and the post-conviction court had abused its discretion in denying Petitioner leave to amend her complaint. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.