“Oregon Supreme Court Tosses Non-Unanimous Jury Conviction,” by Conrad Wilson, OPB June 5, 2020. Link to the Oregon Supreme Court website.
PUGS (Portland Underground Graduate School) offers this November 2016 class – and many others:
LEARN THE BASICS OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THIS 4-WEEK MINI-LAW SCHOOL COURSE. YOU’LL LEARN HOW TO BRIEF A CASE, EXPERIENCE THE FAMOUS “SOCRATIC METHOD” & GET AN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS. “
Maybe you wondered about Oregon’s laws on citizen’s arrests?
Maybe you also wondered if Portland, Oregon, means business with its Vision Zero plan (zero traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries)?
The Oregonian / OregonLive published these two articles:
“Oregon Innocence Project misses mark in notorious murder (OPINION),” by John Foote, March 29, 2016, Clackamas County District Attorney. (Internet Archive copy.)
“Why Oregon Innocence Project has raised questions about notorious murder case (OPINION),” by Steve Wax, April 5, 2016, Legal Director of Oregon Innocence Project, a program of Oregon Justice Resource Center. (Internet Archive copy.)
Oregon 2015 House Bill (HB) 2596: “Provides that person who records another person’s intimate areas commits crime of invasion of personal privacy.”
(Note: See also HB 2356, which “Provides that person who records another person’s intimate areas commits crime of invasion of personal privacy. Increases penalty for crime of invasion of personal privacy if defendant has certain prior convictions or person recorded is under 18 years of age.”)
I’m not sure how a mere mortal would find these bill numbers very efficiently, so here are a few keywords: intimate image, visual recording, undergarments, clothing, photographs, etc. Read on about HB 2596:
November 05, 2014: Court of Appeals: State of Oregon v. Jason Paul Hite (A150288 – Lane County Circuit Court)
“Defendant seeks reversal of a number of convictions related to identity theft 3 and forgery. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his backpack after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant, arguing that the police unlawfully searched the backpack. The trial court ruled that the police were required to inventory the contents of the backpack before taking defendant to jail, and it denied the motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that the search was unlawful because it was not conducted pursuant to a facially valid inventory policy that sufficiently limited the scope of the inventory. The state contends that the inventory policy is sufficiently limited and, alternatively, that the search was a constitutionally permissible search incident to defendant’s arrest. We agree with defendant that the inventory policy is unconstitutionally overbroad. We reject the state’s alternative argument because the state did not raise it in the trial court and, if it had, defendant might have been able to create a different record on the issue. Accordingly, we reverse as to the challenged convictions….” [Link to full case.]
State v. Lewis (A152266, 2014) Multnomah County Circuit Court (111235241)
“We conclude that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the victim in this case suffered “physical injury,” as required by ORS 163.160(1)(a)….
As noted, ORS 163.160(1)(a) provides that, “[a] person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person * * * [i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another.” “Physical injury” is, in turn, defined, in turn, as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” ORS 161.015(7). Defendant contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim suffered either “impairment of physical condition” or “substantial pain” from having her hair pulled out. We address each contention in turn….
If that dusty law book in your office hasn’t been scanned yet (assuming copyright allows you or another repository to do so), PLEASE Don’t Throw it Out!
(If you want to know how to get rid of used law books, read our “How to Dispose of Used Law Books” guide.)
Some very popular Oregon reports that are used a lot in print, but have also been scanned (yay!), including these:
Another hitherto little noticed section of the ORS (see also the Jury “Duty” post about ORS 10.235): this time, it’s ORS 153.058, Initiation of violation proceeding by private party.
See the story in the Willamette Week, by Corey Pein, 9/3/08: DIY Justice: In Oregon, The Man lets you be The Man, too. Here’s how to play traffic cop.