In State v. Keys, the defendant was charged by information with possessing methamphetamine, and his appointed counsel waived the right to a preliminary hearing at arraignment. On appeal, the defendant argued that the waiver was not knowing as required by Article VII (Amended), section 5 of the Oregon Constitution, and that this defect deprived the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction, allowing the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. The Oregon Supreme Court held that an invalid waiver of a preliminary hearing does not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction under the state constitution. The court reasoned that the constitutional provision requires a knowing waiver but does not classify such a defect as jurisdictional, distinguishing it from other unique rights that need not be preserved. Accordingly, the court reversed the Court of Appeals decision—which had treated the issue as jurisdictional—and remanded the case for consideration of whether the unpreserved claim could be reached as plain error.
In State v. Jarnagin, the Oregon Supreme Court reviewed a pretrial order suppressing evidence in a murder prosecution arising from the death of an infant. The parties did not dispute that officers violated the defendant's state constitutional rights by questioning him at the police station and hospital without Miranda warnings. The court held that statements the defendant made at his home the following day were the product of those violations and must be suppressed, but that statements made before and after a polygraph examination later that day were sufficiently attenuated and admissible. The decision affirmed the trial court's suppression order in part and reversed it in part, focusing on the causal connection between the initial unwarned questioning and the later statements.
This case involves two petitioners challenging the Oregon Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 28, which proposes raising the corporate tax rate on income over $10 million from 7.6% to 10% starting in 2013. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the ballot title substantially complies with statutory requirements under ORS 250.035(2). The court found that the ballot title's use of the term "income" is misleading because it does not distinguish between different types of corporate income subject to taxation, such as gross income versus taxable income or profits. Accordingly, the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification to use more precise language.
The case centers on plaintiffs Zidell's petition under ORS 742.061 to recover attorney fees incurred in appellate proceedings in an insurance coverage dispute against defendant insurers London. The court allowed the petition and awarded $40,858.50 in fees for work before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. It reasoned that a 2005 amendment to the statute does not apply to actions filed before its effective date, that fees may be recovered for work establishing the insurers' duty to defend as well as preparing the fee petition itself, and that certain billing entries required reduction due to unsuccessful claims for indemnification-related fees.
This case involves the automatic direct review of a death sentence imposed on defendant Brumwell after a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder for killing a fellow inmate while serving a prior life sentence for two other murders committed during a 1994 convenience store robbery. The primary issues on appeal concerned the trial court's admission, during the separate penalty-phase hearing, of evidence about the defendant's prior interest in satanism and death metal music as it related to his earlier crimes. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of death, holding that the evidence was relevant under the state's evidence rules to the penalty-phase questions of future dangerousness, culpability, and character because it helped explain the motives for the prior violent acts. The court further concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and that neither the federal First Amendment nor the Oregon Constitution's religion provisions barred its admission in this context.
This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendants in an insurance coverage dispute, ZRZ Realty Co. v. Beneficial Fire & Casualty Insurance, concerning the allocation of the burden of proof under express fortuity policies for determining whether property damage was expected or intended by the insured. The Oregon Supreme Court had previously found error in the trial court's assignment of that burden and remanded for further proceedings with instructions on whether to supplement the record or rely on existing findings. Defendants raised concerns that the remand language could prevent a successor judge from hearing live testimony after the original trial judge's death. The court rejects two grounds for reconsideration without discussion but modifies its prior opinion to clarify that the trial court retains discretion to take additional live testimony on remand if warranted, while otherwise adhering to the opinion as modified.
