Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Benton
Oregon Supreme Court · 2023-08-10 · cited 12×
This case concerned whether statements made by defendant to a fellow inmate, Layman, while both were in custody should have been suppressed because Layman acted as a state agent in violation of defendant's right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and other crimes based in part on Layman's testimony, but the trial court had denied a motion to suppress after finding insufficient evidence of state agency. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding that by the end of Layman's second proffer meeting with prosecutors the state's offer of benefits in exchange for information, combined with its implicit guidance on topics of interest, provided enough encouragement and direction to render Layman a state agent. As a result, defendant's admissions to Layman after that date were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and should have been excluded, leading to reversal of four convictions and remand for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
Jones v. Brown
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-12-30 · cited 11×
The case involved a petitioner seeking post-conviction relief from three of her seven criminal convictions on the ground that they were obtained through nonunanimous jury verdicts in violation of the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana. The post-conviction court denied relief on that claim, but the Supreme Court reversed that denial as to the three challenged convictions and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the denial of other claims or deeming them moot. The court reasoned that, under its decision in Watkins v. Ackley, a conviction based on a nonunanimous verdict constitutes a substantial denial of a constitutional right that renders the conviction void under ORS 138.530(1)(a), even if the conviction became final before Ramos was decided, unless a procedural defense applies.
criminal lawprocedure
Huggett v. Kelly
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-12-30 · cited 10×
In Huggett v. Kelly, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief from two convictions obtained by nonunanimous jury verdicts, asserting claims of inadequate assistance of counsel and a violation of the Sixth Amendment jury unanimity requirement established in Ramos v. Louisiana. The post-conviction court denied relief, ruling that Ramos did not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final. On appeal, certified to the Oregon Supreme Court, the court reversed that denial and remanded the case, holding that under its decision in the companion case Watkins v. Ackley, a conviction based on a nonunanimous verdict constitutes a substantial denial of a constitutional right that renders the conviction void and entitles the petitioner to relief under ORS 138.530(1)(a), absent any procedural defenses. The petitioner's remaining claims were deemed moot in light of the resolution of the Ramos-based claim.
criminal lawprocedure
Watkins v. Ackley
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-12-30 · cited 71×
The case concerned a petition for post-conviction relief from four felony convictions that had been obtained through nonunanimous jury verdicts. Petitioner argued that those convictions violated the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana, which requires unanimous verdicts for criminal convictions, and sought retroactive application of that rule even though the convictions were already final. The post-conviction court denied relief, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that a Ramos violation constitutes a substantial denial of a constitutional right that renders the conviction void under ORS 138.530(1)(a). The court reasoned that the statutory post-conviction framework requires relief for such constitutional violations unless a procedural defense is raised and sustained, regardless of whether the conviction was final before Ramos was decided. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Picker v. Dept. of Rev.
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-12-30 · cited 1×
In this case, taxpayers appealed an Oregon Department of Revenue income tax assessment to the Tax Court but sought to avoid the statutory prepayment requirement under ORS 305.419 by claiming that payment would cause undue hardship. The Tax Court found their financial affidavit insufficient, ordered additional documentation, and dismissed the appeal when taxpayers neither provided the documents nor paid the tax. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Tax Court properly found the taxpayers had failed to establish undue hardship and that the statute limits "undue hardship" to financial hardship resulting from payment of the assessed tax. The court rejected the taxpayers' argument for a broader interpretation of the term that would include non-financial grievances such as alleged unfair treatment by the department.
taxesprocedure
I. H. v. Ammi
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-11-10 · cited 4×
The case arose from a Family Abuse Prevention Act proceeding in which the relator sought a restraining order against her husband and introduced video evidence from a dash camera showing her communications with a certified advocate. The trial court granted the respondent's motion to compel production of the entire memory card containing those videos as well as all other advocate-victim communications, relying on an asserted exception to the certified advocate-victim privilege and the rule of completeness. The relator petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the privilege under OEC 507-1 protected the communications and that the discovery request was overbroad under ORCP 36. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had misapplied the privilege exception and that no legal basis supported compelling production of the unaltered memory card, rendering the order an abuse of discretion. The court therefore issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the discovery order.
family lawprocedure