Summary
The Oregon Court of Appeals allowed reconsideration of its prior decision in State v. Miller and modified that opinion while adhering to it as modified. The court clarified its analysis of joinder and severance under ORS 132.560, including whether the charges were connected or part of a common scheme or plan and whether the defendant was required to assign error to the joinder ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant was required to assign error to the trial court's ruling joining the charges on the common-scheme-or-plan basis in order to challenge that basis as part of the severance analysis.
- Whether the charges were properly joined under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C) because they were based on acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.
- Whether the Court of Appeals should modify its former opinion on reconsideration while adhering to its prior disposition.
Holdings
- An appellant must assign error to a ruling rather than to the ruling's underlying reasoning, but the court declined to decide whether defendant was required to assign error to the trial court's joinder ruling on the common-scheme-or-plan basis because it rejected defendant's challenge on the merits.
- The charges were properly joined under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C) because the acts underlying the offenses were connected together or constituted parts of a common scheme or plan.
- The petition for reconsideration was allowed, the former opinion was modified to clarify its reasoning, and the former opinion was adhered to as modified.
Key quotations
“ORAP 5.45(3) requires an appellant to assign error to a ruling, not to the underlying reasoning.” (at 520)
“That provides a sufficient basis to conclude that the charges were based on acts that were connected together or part of a common scheme or plan and that joinder was, therefore, appropriate on that basis.” (at 521)
Factual background
The charges involved two victims and arose from similar conduct. Defendant allegedly drove a white van, approached apparently unhoused and vulnerable persons at night in bad weather, invited them inside to get warm, took them to a secluded area, and sexually assaulted them. The investigations were intertwined, and the charges involved overlapping evidence and witnesses.
Procedural history
The Lane County Circuit Court denied defendant's motion to sever charges. The Court of Appeals previously affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying severance. On reconsideration, the court modified the reasoning in its former opinion and adhered to that opinion as modified.