Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
State v. Skotland
To preserve an issue on appeal, the defendant must have adequately explained the basis of their objection at the lower court.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Oregon Court of Appeals (18 summaries)
State v. Palmer
“[T]here is a gradation in criminal conduct under ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D), such that there could be con-duct which is significantly different from the usual conduct under the statute.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lewis
“We acknowledge that the factors point in different directions. However, given the neutral form of the instruction to simply keep deliberating and the amount of time spent deliberating before and after the instruction, we conclude that the instruction was not impermissibly coercive.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Duran v. Majorie House McMinnville, LLC, 335 Or App 501 (2024))
“[U]nder the plain text and context of the rules, there is no independent legal authority for a designated representative to enter into an arbitration agreement on an individual’s behalf. ”
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. G.B.
"[G]iven the totality of the circumstances before the trial court when it ruled, we conclude that the court made a choice outside the permis-sible range of discretion"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Day
Pecuniary penalties imposed in a written judgment but not pronounced at sentencing is unlawful. If a court uses a shorthand phrase, it must: (1) be immediately apparent in the record the parties understood what the shorthand meant; and (2) the shorthand included the obligations on the written judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sarria
“ [T]o allow a ‘motion to dismiss’ to be used pretrial to ‘challenge the sufficiency of the state’s anticipated proof of a charge’ . . . would ‘contradict and subvert the principle expressed’ . . . that it is error for a trial court to sustain a defendant’s demurrer on the basis of facts not alleged in the complaint.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Antonio
"[T]he trial court did not engage in OEC 403 balancing because it determined that the OEC 403 balancing requirement only applied to challenges to prior bad acts evidence. But a trial court’s responsibility to engage in OEC 403 balancing is not limited to prior bad acts evidence. [It] was operating under an incorrect understanding of the law."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. S.L.
"[A]ppellant’s discharge on October 3 did not amount to a “sham” simply because Unity implemented it in a coordinated manner that took into account appellant’s acute psychosis and inability to care for his basic needs."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Moore
A witness’ veracity can be established by evaluating whether their statements can be corroborated and whether their testimony exposes them to potential criminal liability.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ribas
"[T]he state was required to prove that defendant did not report by the 10th day after a change of residence—in other words . . . that defendant moved on or before February 15."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In re Marriage of Daniel-Elliot and Daniel
“When a trial court determines that a property provision of a dissolution judgment is ambiguous, it is permitted to explain the meaning or the intent of that existing ambiguous provision, but it is not permitted to make substantive changes to the original terms of the judgment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Dehaven
“Because defendant’s argument rests on the application of OEC 403 and we do not otherwise find that the admission of defendant’s prior convictions under OEC 609 was [in violation of Aranda].”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Braich v. Smith, 332 Or App 338 (2024).
“[T]he basis for dismissal, as stated in the judgment, was not a lack of capacity; rather . . . the complaint was dismissed because the trust was not represented by counsel, as required by ORS 9.320. ”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Worsham
Where a term’s legal meaning differs from common usage, an instruction may be necessary. Because it was here, it was plain error to fail to instruct the jury on the limits and elements of the defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Whiteley
"A defense to a criminal charge, such as choice of evils, should be withdrawn from the jury’s consideration only if there is no evidence in the record to support an element of the defense."
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).
- Criminal Law
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).
- Civil Commitment
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).
- Criminal Law