In an opinion that should produce a bunch of smirks, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a criminal defendant can be in constructive possession of drugs found inside his co-defendant's vagina. Before we start the inevitable "slippery slope" sort of arguments a case like this is destined to produce, let's look at the facts. In State v. Sherman, an opinion announced by the COA April 22, 2015, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's MJOA "based on its determination that a reasonable juror could conclude that he constructively possessed 5.67 grams of cocaine found in his codefendant's vagina." Sure.
In 1997 the Oregon legislature passed what was then-referred to as Senate Bill 936. Senate Bill 936 made a number of changes to Oregon criminal defense statutes. No change was perhaps more significant than the addition to Oregon's evidence code of section 404(4). This section fundamentally changed the way in which Oregon courts treated an entire class of evidence commonly referred to as "prior bad acts" evidence.
Yesterday the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the assault conviction of Vernice Scott because the trial court had excluded evidence that was relevant to his claim that he acted in self-defense.
Today the Oregon Supreme Court upheld Ronald Everett's conviction for Solicitation to Commit Aggravated Murder on the grounds that he solicited someone to deliver damaging information about an outlaw biker to other members of that individual's outlaw biker gang, in the hopes that members of that gang might act on such information by murdering that outlaw biker.
In an appellate out of juvenile court today the Oregon court of Appeals overturned a court's finding that a child had committed the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree. Burglary in the Second Degree is committed when a person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with the intent to commit a crime therein. A person enters unlawfully when go into the building without legal authorization. A person remains unlawfully when, after entering lawfully, they remain after their authorization has expired or been revoked.
In a shameful decision today, the Oregon Supreme Court overruled its own precedent and gutted an important part of the Oregon Constitution's guarantee to all Oregonians that they be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Did you really mean "No Trespassing" when you posted that "No trespassing" sign? According to the State of Oregon, the answer is "well, it depends." It seems that convicted felon Billy Roper wanted to be left alone on his property with his growing marijuana, his methamphetamine and his firearms. (Really, who wouldn't?) In this regard he posted no trespassing signs around and on the gate to his driveway.
Yesterday the Oregon Supreme Court rewrote the 33 year-old and woefully inadequate evidetiary rules regarding the handling of eyewitness identification evidence, here.
This past Wednesday the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the Marion County Sheriff's Office Inventory Search Policy was unconstitutional. In doing so it reversed Eugenio Cordova's convictions for Delivery and Possession of a Controlled Substance and Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
On January 23, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones, discussed here, held that the government's installation of a GPS device on a suspect's car, and the use of that device to monitor the car's movements constitutes a "search" under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus placement of a GPS device on a suspect's car would under normal circumstances require a judicially approved search warrant.