W. Michael Gillette

This case involves two prisoners, Severy and Wilson, each convicted of multiple counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms with 30-year mandatory minimum sentences. After serving 20 years on the first sentence, the Board of Parole found each prisoner capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time and converted the terms of the first sentence to life with the possibility of parole under ORS 163.105. The Court of Appeals, following Norris v. Board of Parole, held that the conversion applied only to the first sentence, so each prisoner would need to serve another 20 years before a rehabilitation hearing on the second sentence. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to address the board's authority over consecutive sentences in light of its recent decision in Janowski/Fleming, which permitted override of a single 30-year minimum after a rehabilitation finding.

criminal law

This case concerns two prisoners convicted of aggravated murder in 1985 and 1986 who received life sentences with 30-year mandatory minimum terms under ORS 163.105(1) (1985). After 20 years of incarceration, each petitioned the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for a hearing under ORS 163.105(2) and (3) to determine whether they were likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable time; the board found in their favor and converted their sentences to life with the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals held that the board had authority to override the mandatory minimums but remanded for the board to decide which rules applied. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that the board possesses such override authority but reversed the remand, holding that the legislature intended the board to apply the parole matrix rules to set release dates once the conversion occurs.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Salas-Juarez, the defendant was convicted of murder and attempted murder after a street fight in which a participant was fatally stabbed. The trial court excluded evidence that Russell, another instigator in the fight, had earlier stated he wanted to "slash" someone and displayed a knife; the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statement was admissible under OEC 404(3) as evidence of Russell's state of mind and motive rather than character, that it was relevant under OEC 402, and that its exclusion was not harmless because the evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming and the statement could have supported reasonable doubt about his guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ashbaugh, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of methamphetamine found during a police search of her purse in a public park, arguing that her consent was invalid because it resulted from an earlier unlawful seizure of her person in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals remanded for further fact-finding on whether the encounter constituted a seizure. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the officers' interactions with the defendant, including requesting identification and later asking to search her purse, did not amount to a seizure because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave or decline the requests. The court reasoned that the initial approach and identification check were consensual and relaxed, the officers returned the defendant's ID before arresting her husband, and the subsequent request to search occurred after the husband had been removed, without any show of authority that would have objectively restricted the defendant's liberty. As a result, the consent search was lawful and the evidence admissible.

criminal lawcivil rights

This land use case concerned Wal-Mart's application for site plan and architectural review approval to build a large store in Medford, Oregon. Petitioners challenged the city's approval, arguing that city code provisions (MLDC 10.460-10.462) required Wal-Mart to submit a comprehensive traffic impact analysis and demonstrate that surrounding roads would maintain level of service D. The city and Wal-Mart contended that those provisions were not applicable to site plan review decisions. LUBA sided with petitioners and remanded, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the city's interpretation plausible. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that LUBA and courts must defer to the city's plausible reading of its own code, under which the traffic requirements did not apply to the site plan process.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over life insurance proceeds following a divorce. The dissolution decree required the decedent to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy naming his ex-wife as trustee for their child, but he instead purchased a $600,000 policy naming his girlfriend as beneficiary and died without fulfilling the decree. The ex-wife sued the girlfriend, seeking a constructive trust on $100,000 of the proceeds under theories of unjust enrichment and money had and received. The trial court granted summary judgment to the ex-wife, but the Court of Appeals reversed in favor of the girlfriend; the Oregon Supreme Court held that neither party was entitled to summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues regarding the girlfriend's knowledge and the applicability of the decree's constructive trust provision, and remanded the case.

family lawproperty