[DV_listserv] Two VRO/FAPA cases
Domestic Violence issues
dv_listserv at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
Tue Jan 3 10:58:34 PST 2012
State v. Copeland
Date Filed: 12/29/2011
Case #: A143210
Haselton, P.J. for the Court; Armstrong, J.; Sercombe, J. concurring
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A143210.pdf
Constitutional Law: The public records hearsay exception is not
limited to collateral matters only because 1) prior case history
discussing the matter does not distinguish between "collateral" and
essential facts, and 2) the framers of the Oregon Constitution
incorporated several exceptions from the common law, including the
public records exception.
Defendant's wife sought, and was granted, a restraining order baring
defendant from approaching within 150 feet of her. The Multnomah
County Deputy Sherriff certified by proof of service that he
personally served defendant with the restraining order. Two months
after defendant was served, his wife observed him through a window of
a bar that was within 150 of the Savoy Tavern, a bar his wife
frequented and a bar he was barred from approaching. Subsequently, the
defendant was arrested, but objected at trial to the state's offering
of proof of service as notice of the restraining order on the grounds
that it violated his rights to confrontation under the United States
Constitution, because the state did not offer testimony by the
notifying officer, or show he was unavailable. The state countered
that proof of service was an exception under the public records
hearsay exception. On appeal, defendant argued that the public records
exception was not so broad as the state contended, and only covered
"collateral" matters. The Court of Appeals analyzed prior case law
from State v. Conway and State v. William and held that neither case
limited the public records exception to collateral matters only.
Rather, because neither case distinguished between "collateral" and
essential, "noncollateral," facts, and the framers of the Oregon
Constitution incorporated several exceptions from the common law -
including the public records exception - the public records hearsay
exception was not limited to collateral matters only. Affirmed
State v. Caldwell
Date Filed: 12/29/11
Case #: A145511
Haselton, P.J. for the Court; Armstrong, J. & Duncan, J.
Full Text Opinion: www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A145511.pdf<http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A145511.pdf>
Post-Conviction Relief: The mere existence of a restraining order does
not constitute corroborating evidence sufficient to warrant a
conviction for violation of a restraining order when the only other
evidence presented by the state is the defendant's confession.
Defendant had been served with a restraining order against Weiss.
Weiss was in the process of speaking with an officer regarding a
complaint that defendant violated the restraining order when defendant
called Weiss on the phone. The interviewing officer answered, and
defendant admitted to knowing of the existence of the restraining
order. Defendant later admitted to police that he had sent 25 text
messages to Weiss. Defendant was charged with 25 counts of contempt
for violating the restraining order. The first 24 were based on the
text messages, while count 25 was based on the phone call to Weiss.
Defendant was only convicted of counts 1 and 25, but argued on appeal
that the conviction on count 1 should be reversed because the state
presented no corroborating evidence to prove its case, only the
statement by defendant that he sent the text messages. The trial court
based its conviction on the fact that the issuance of the restraining
order constituted corroboration. The Court of Appeals found that the
existence of the restraining order alone did not constitute
corroboration, and that the state was required to present some other
extrinsic evidence beyond defendant's confession in order to warrant a
conviction on count 1. Reversed as to count 1; otherwise affirmed.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DV_listserv