Program includes trial fundamentals: pretrial issues, voir dire, jury instructions, direct examination, cross-examination, and closing argument, plus a slew of thrilling subjects that will elevate your practice to dazzling new heights. More details, program and registration.
Stay abreast of contantly changing deliquency and dependency law and best practices, and pick up tools and tips to help you more effectively represent your clients. Topics covered: establishing a trauma-informed client relationship, practical challenges in representing children, shackling, dependency and delinquency/criminal appeals update, legislative news, challenging the shaken baby hypothesis, discovery tips, and negotiating the relationship between trial and appellate practice. Experienced and newer attorneys will improve many aspects of their juvenile law practice by attending this seminar. See program.
Just released. Completely reshaped and revised. Now even easier to find what you’re looking for, the 2014 edition focuses its attention on key opinions, in-depth analysis, practice tips, and much more. In addition to the editors, chapter authors include deputy defender Morgen Daniels with the Office of Public Defense Services, and former Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz, now a distinguished jurist at Willamette University College of Law. Read more and order your hardcopy and/or PDF License today.
OCDLA’s 2014 edition is unlike any previous edition — the book has been streamlined into two parts, with the Notebook’s (one binder) motions, checklists, case law and practice tips slim enough to carry with you to court and the “Resource Guide” (two binders) beefed up and categorized, providing the basis for deeper research and learning, broad enough to act as your own DUII defense library in your office or on your hard drive. A total of three binders full of useful manuals and DMV forms if you choose to purchase the hardcopy, and scores of useful links to resources online. Read more and purchase 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
Not Done Yet, But Looking Back by Eve Oldenkamp
Newest Issue of the Oregon Defense Attorney