Strengthen your practice with daring defenses that work. Richard D. Friedman, University of Michigan Law School, untangles litigating around the confrontation clause. Jason Kreag, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, offers simple yet compelling solutions to Brady violations. Plus more daring defenses from a cadre of trusted Oregon practitioners. Save $25, register by November 24. Details, registration.
The 2015 Legislative Analysis of Criminal and Juvenile Laws contains summaries and complete enrolled versions of more than 100 bills covering new criminal, juvenile, and traffic legislation.
Includes extensive analysis on the most critical bills this session, such as: SB 188 — "Revenge Porn", SB 641—Forfeiture/Data Seizure, SB 839 — "Good Samaritan" Defense, HB 2317 — Statute of Limitations, HB 2320 — Juvenile Sex Offender Registration, HB 3025 — "Ban the Box", HB 3400 — Marijuana. Plus, a complete index and guide to bills by subject, paginated “Quick List” to the House and Senate sections and the 2015 “Top Forty.”
A terrific reference tool to Oregon procedural issues that lawyers are likely to confront in criminal cases. Released August, 2015, this is a substantial update to the 2011 edition. $55. Order here.
• Search & Seizure Outline
• Prior Crimes and Bad Acts
• Merger of Sentences
• Updated Statutes, Including Speedy Trial and Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence
Some sentencing issues are so complex you would have to spend hours researching what you can find easily in this invaluable resource. The 2012 edition, updated with the May 2015 Update, helps you arrive at the correct interpretation and craft a winning argument. You’ll reach for it every time:
• your client is pleading to more than one felony count in a single indictment
• the state files a notice of aggravating factors
• you are going to “open sentencing” on felony charges.
And those are just a few examples. For comprehensive coverage of sentencing issues, guidelines and related case law, plus practice pointers and detailed
challenges that can be raised on constitutional and other grounds, don’t look any further. Order here.
Search and Seizure in Oregon has been updated for 2015, with case law updates and two new chapters. The following chapters are new to the manual:
• Chapter 8—Search/Seizure of Digital Data, Bronson James
• Chapter 9—Before and After the Appeal, Ryan Scott
The following chapters have updates with significant case law since the manual was issued in September, 2014:
• Chapter 1, "Was there a Search/Seizure"
• Chapter 3, "Warrantless Searches"
• Chapter 5, "Search Warrants"
• Chapter 6, "Is Defendant Entitled to Suppression?"
The book focuses on key opinions, with in-depth analysis, practice tips, and much more. Starting at just $175. Order here.
Burglary Requires Criminal Intent at the Initiation of a Criminal Trespass
Burglary is a criminal trespass with the intent to commit a crime. Thus, where a person unlawfully enters without criminal intent and then later develops criminal intent, there is no burglary. Here, defendant trespassed into an empty home to look around. He then decided to take a key while he was inside. He was not guilty of burglary because he did not have the intent to steal at the time he entered the home. Note that a burglary can also be committed by remaining unlawfully. In that case, the person must intend to commit a crime at the point where permission to be on the property is revoked. Reversed for entry of judgement on Criminal Trespass II. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)
Possession/Manufacture of a Destructive Device - Pyrotechnics Don't Count
A pyrotechnic device is not a destructive device for the purpose of ORS 166.382-4, possession and manufacture of a destructive device. Pyrotechnic devices, also known as fireworks, are explosive substances "prepared for the purpose of providing a visible or audible effect." Here, defendant, a juvenile, filled a tennis ball with gunpowder and, using a pixie stick as a wick, planned to light the tennis ball for the purpose of creating a big flash. If his purpose was not to destroy anything, but only to create a visible effect, he was not guilty of either possession or manufacture of a destructive device. Reversed and remanded for fact finding and determination on the question of whether the tennis ball creation was a pyrotechnic device. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)
Corroboration is Not "Bolstering"
When a defendant calls witnesses to confirm his version of events, it is not "bolstering". It is corroboration. Here, defendant attempted to call an eyewitness to a recent prior assault by the complainant against defendant to support self-defense. The Lane County judge barred the witness, saying "I'm not going to let him bolster". The appellate court finds that it was reversible error to exclude the testimony. "When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, evidence of the alleged victim's prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1)." Moreover, since complainant denied the recent violent acts, the eyewitness could have made the difference. Reversed. State v Beisser.Read more
Please join the OCDLA Board of Directors in honoring Peter with the prestigious Ken Morrow Lifetime Achievement Award. More info.
But Who Will Bell the Cat? by Ed Kroll
OCDLA is beginning a mentoring program for law students and newer members. Read more.
Nov-Dec 2015 issue of the Oregon Defense Attorney