Oregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed review as improvidently allowed because the record and briefing did not present the state constitutional public-safety-exception question in a way that would facilitate full consideration.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied Driver’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The per curiam opinion gives no explanation and does not resolve whether a trial court may set aside an indictment for a violation of the grand-jury hearsay statute.

The court held that a seizure occurred when an officer activated her emergency lights and parked near defendant, because the targeted police presence would cause a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave.

The court held that attorney-client communications that were privileged when made remain outside the scope of civil discovery even if they may be disclosable under the public records law.

The court held that trial counsel provided inadequate assistance by failing to seek a mistrial after jurors saw the defendant in jail clothes and shackles during trial, and that the failure prejudiced him.

The court held that lay opinion testimony offered to impeach a witness under OEC 608(1) is subject to OEC 701’s foundation requirements, and that recent contact is relevant but not a prerequisite.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court judgment in case 21CR41830, reversed the judgment in case 22CR24774 and remanded it for further proceedings. It held that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming on an alternative procedural basis and that the criminal citation was not lawfully issued because it was…

The Oregon Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for the appellate court to reconsider the validity of OAR 291-100-0080(3)(c) in light of the 2026 statutory amendments to ORS 137.320 and ORS 137.370, addressing whether intervening legislative changes affect a pending facial…

The Oregon Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial both for the prosecutor’s improper interjection during cross‑examination and for prejudicial comments in closing argument, reversing the convictions and remanding for a new trial.

The court held that an indictment charging robbery based on a threat to use physical force must allege that the defendant threatened the immediate use of force, because that allegation is essential to the statutory offense.

The court held that first-degree criminal mistreatment requires proof that a defendant knowingly kept back food or care that the defendant could access and provide and that the dependent person needed for bodily health.

The court reviewed the disciplinary panel’s decision de novo but, because respondent filed no opening brief, limited its review to the record and found clear and convincing evidence of all four charged violations. Finding no reason to reduce the panel’s 90-day suspension, the court affirmed.

The court held that the statutory requirement to use only clear and objective standards for regulating housing development did not apply to the proposed public road on an adjacent public right-of-way.

The court dismissed the alternative writ because the amended discovery statute on which the relator primarily relied did not apply to his criminal case. The court held that the amendments applied based on the alleged crime-commission dates, not the date the charges were filed.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that the state’s gang‑related evidence was admissible because it was offered on a non‑character basis to prove motive, reversing the Court of Appeals on that issue.

OEC 601 addresses whether a person has the general capacities to be a witness at all; it does not permit a court to disqualify an otherwise competent witness from testifying about a particular fact based on an inability to recall that fact.

The court dismissed the alternative writ after declining, in its discretion, to decide the defendant’s challenge to the order quashing his subpoena for Meta records. It concluded that he had not shown a special loss warranting mandamus at this stage: Meta had agreed to preserve the records, and the defendant was…

The Oregon Supreme Court held that respondent violated RPC 3.4(c) and RPC 8.4(a)(4) but not RPC 3.4(b), and imposed a 30‑day suspension rather than the trial panel’s 60‑day suspension. The court applied de novo review, requiring clear and convincing evidence of each violation.

The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding that genuine factual disputes exist as to whether the state‑owned vehicle was “furnished for regular use” under ORS 742.504(4)(b); therefore the insurer’s summary judgment was improper, while the plaintiff’s request for partial…

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Senate Bill 587 does not preempt Washington County Ordinance 878, which bans flavored tobacco products, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that both the caption and the “yes” result statement of the certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 64 fail to substantially comply with the statutory requirements of ORS 250.035, and therefore referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 59 substantially complies with statutory requirements and, exercising its authority under ORS 250.085(8), modified the title to correct two textual errors before certifying it to the Secretary of State.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORS 138.105 permits direct appellate review of a defendant’s constitutional challenge to a sentencing‑guidelines sentence, including challenges that the crime‑seriousness classification is unconstitutional under Article I, section 16, and reversed the Court of Appeals, remanding for…

The court held that the trial court must orally give, at the conclusion of trial, all legal instructions necessary for the jury’s verdict, even when it gave some of them earlier and included them in the written instructions.

The court held that, assuming the officer’s testimony was categorically prohibited vouching, the possibility that defendant chose not to object for strategic reasons did not prevent the error from qualifying as plain error.

The court held that accessing the internet through a public Wi-Fi network does not eliminate an Oregon constitutional privacy right in internet browsing activity, and that terms of service permitting monitoring or disclosure do not waive that right.

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that his statements during a custodial interrogation were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and therefore admissible.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the disciplinary board trial panel, dismissing the State Bar's complaint that respondent violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.3(a)(4), and RPC 8.4(a)(4), finding the Bar failed to prove the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence.

The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition, holding that ORS 144.350 does not authorize the Department of Corrections to re‑arrest and detain the plaintiff after his release, and therefore ordered his immediate discharge.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that the state’s failure to appoint counsel for an eligible defendant after arraignment violates Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, that dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate remedy, and that a bright‑line rule of 60 days for misdemeanors and 90 days for felonies…

The Oregon Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to correct alleged errors in sentencing judgments.

On reconsideration, the Oregon Supreme Court modified its earlier opinion to remand the case to the Court of Appeals, which had not addressed defendant’s second assignment of error.

The court held that the prosecutor improperly suggested that defendant had an obligation to use cross-examination to elicit evidence supporting his theory, despite the state’s burden to prove the charges.

The court held that the state was bound by its trial theory that Ribas changed residences after February 15, 2019, but was not required to prove that the offense occurred on the exact date alleged in the indictment.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied the state's petition for review and both of defendant's contingent petitions, without deciding the underlying evidentiary question. Justice Duncan concurred, noting that the issue raised by the state could warrant consideration in an appropriate case; Justice James concurred…

The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition, holding that the Department of Corrections lacked authority under ORS 144.350 to re‑arrest him and that the court should not defer the petition pending a separate mandamus action. Accordingly, the plaintiff was ordered to be released immediately.

The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition, holding that ORS 144.350 does not authorize the Department of Corrections to re‑arrest and detain him after his release, and ordered his immediate discharge.

The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition, holding that ORS 144.350 does not authorize the Department of Corrections to re‑arrest the plaintiff and ordering his immediate release.

The court held that Article I, section 10, prevents the state from using ORS 30.265(6)(a) to entirely bar a common-law negligence remedy for a privately employed worker injured on the job by negligent state employees.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that “physical force” in the third‑degree robbery statute means contact that either causes bodily harm or is reasonably capable of creating a sense of fear or danger of such harm, and applied that definition to find the defendant’s grabbing of a motel keycard did not satisfy the element…