Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the lawfulness of a portion of the City of Portland's Willamette River Greenway Plan that regulates uses of industrial and other urban land along a portion of the Willamette River known as the "North Reach." Specifically, the issue was whether the City of Portland (city) had authority to regulate development within the North Reach. Petitioners represented various industrial interests within the affected area of the city's plan. They contended that the law permitted the city to regulate only "intensification" or "changes" to existing uses and otherwise does not permit the regulation of existing industrial or other urban uses or other changes to such uses within the North Reach. The Land Use Board of Appeals rejected that argument, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court likewise rejected petitioners' argument and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in "Oregon v. Leistiko," (282 P3d 857 (2012)). He argued that the Court erred in two respects: (1) in stating that he had not pursued two issues on review that he had raised in the Court of Appeals; (2) in not deciding whether the admission of evidence of an uncharged rape affected the jury's determination that he had committed crimes other than rape. The Court allowed the petition and after review of defendant's contentions of error, modified the original opinion. View "Oregon v. Leistiko" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the legal standard for the mental state of criminal negligence and, when tested by that standard, whether the record in this case was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of criminally negligent homicide. Defendant, while driving a tractor-trailer truck, collided with the victim's catering truck from the rear. The collision pushed the victim's truck into the oncoming lane of traffic where it was struck by a logging truck. The victim died at the scene. The state charged defendant with criminally negligent homicide. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of the manner in which he had been driving 10 to 15 minutes before the collision. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant then waived his right to a jury and proceeded with a bench trial. At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. The trial court subsequently convicted defendant. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. Finding no error in the trial court's interpretation of the standard for criminal negligence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Oregon v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's orders declaring defendant's son, "Z" (a 19-year-old man who suffers from autism and developmental disabilities) not competent to testify at trial and excluding from evidence a video involving out-of-court statements made by Z and drawings made by Z. Z was called to testify at Defendant's aggravated murder trial accused of killing Z's caregiver William Mills. Finding that the State bore the burden to preserve alternative arguments supporting the admissibility of any part of evidence given by Z, and the State did not meet this burden at trial, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude all of the evidence in question here. Furthermore, the Court determined that the decision not to admit the video testimony was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The Court affirmed both of the trial court's orders. View "Oregon v. Sarich" on Justia Law

This case was an automatic and direct review of death sentences imposed after a "penalty phase" trial. Defendant raised 33 assignments of error. Five of them the Supreme Court said merited discussion: specifically, defendant's claims that (1) the adoption of Article I, section 40, of the Oregon Constitution violated the "separate vote" requirement of Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution; (2) the so-called "third question," which asked whether defendant's conduct was "unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased," was unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence relevant to the third question or failing to pose the question to the jury; (4) the trial court erred in empanelling an "anonymous" jury; and (5) the trial court erred in allowing the state's expert to testify about defendant's consensual homosexual experience as a teenager. The Court discussed, but rejected, three of the five arguments; defendant's position as to the fourth and fifth were well taken. The Court concluded that that the trial court erred in empanelling an "anonymous" jury without finding, as required by the Court's decision in "State v. Sundberg," (247 P3d 1213 (2011)), that there were strong and particular grounds for believing that the jurors' identities needed to be protected. Because that error was not harmless, the Court vacated the death sentences and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new penalty-phase trial. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to exclude evidence of defendant's homosexual experiences as a teenager. View "Oregon v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by indictment with (among other things) assault in the first degree. At trial, the state proceeded solely under the theory that defendant had aided and abetted his codefendant's initial assault on the victim. A jury found defendant guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant's first degree assault conviction and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on the lesser charges of second- and fourth-degree assault. The Supreme Court allowed the state's petition for review to examine whether, on appellate review, the state can sustain a criminal conviction on a theory of criminal liability that it did not pursue at trial. Finding that it could not, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Oregon v. Burgess" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Douglas Pitt of two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior uncharged sexual misconduct involving the victim and another individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's convictions, concluding that the trial court did not err in declining to exclude the challenged evidence because it was relevant to bolster the victim's credibility in identifying defendant as her abuser. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion in limine. The trial court did not decide that the evidence of defendant's uncharged misconduct was conditionally admissible. It ruled instead, without conditions, that the uncharged misconduct evidence was relevant and admissible. In light of the record that existed when the trial court addressed the motion in limine, the court's ruling was erroneous. Accordingly, the appellate court's affirmation of the trial court was in error. The ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Oregon v. Pitt" on Justia Law

In this construction defect case, defendant moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff then filed a "motion for reconsideration" of the summary judgment ruling. The court meanwhile entered judgment, and plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. When the trial court later denied the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff did not file a new notice of appeal. The question in this case was whether plaintiff needed to do so. Defendant argued that, because a motion for reconsideration constitutes a motion for new trial, its filing rendered plaintiff's earlier notice of appeal premature and, as a consequence, a nullity. Plaintiff argued that the motion for reconsideration did not constitute a motion for a new trial and thus had no effect on the filing of the notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that, under "Carter v. U.S. National Bank," (747 P2d 980 (1987)), a motion for reconsideration constitutes a motion for a new trial. Nevertheless, the court held that the filing of the motion did not have the effect of rendering the appeal a nullity. Consequently, the court concluded that plaintiff was not required to file a new notice of appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that "Carter" and earlier decisions declaring that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment constitutes a motion for a new trial were incorrectly decided. In this case, plaintiff's filing of the motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment did not render the filing of the notice of appeal premature. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals on different grounds. View "Assoc. Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condo v. Warren" on Justia Law

In 2006, two ballot measures were placed before Oregon voters at the polls. Measure 46 (2006) sought to amend the Oregon Constitution to permit the enactment of laws prohibiting or limiting electoral campaign "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description." Measure 47 (2006) sought to create new campaign finance statutes that would, essentially, statutorily implement the constitutional changes proposed in Measure 46. Voters rejected Measure 46 but approved Measure 47. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case required the examination of the operative text of Measure 47. The trial court concluded that the text at issue was severable from the ballot measure and ruled that the remaining provisions of the measure were, according to the plain text of the measure itself, dormant. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court's judgment and the decision by the Court of Appeals. View "Hazell v. Brown" on Justia Law

Subsection (1) of ORS 20.080 provides for an award of attorney fees to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff prevails in the action, plus prerequisites plaintiff must adhere to to collect the award. Subsection (2) provides for an award of fees to the defendant if the defendant pleads a counterclaim and the defendant prevails in the action. Subsection (2), however, does not mention any prerequisites to the award. The issue in this case was whether subsection (2) nevertheless should be read to require a defendant to have made a timely written demand as a prerequisite to recovering attorney fees under the statute. The Court of Appeals concluded that ORS 20.080(2) must be read to include the requirement. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed: "the legislature included no statutory wording that is reasonably capable of being read to require a defendant to tender a prelitigation demand as a prerequisite to recovering attorney fees." View "Halperin v. Pitts" on Justia Law