Criminal Law and Justice

Criminal Law News & Resources

• State v. Iseli, --- P.3d ---, No. A161740, 2018 WL 3569132 (Or. Ct. App. July 25, 2018)
• 
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Hopper
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Hopper
• 
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Siena Nesbitt-Fox
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Siena Nesbitt-Fox
• Training the Next Generation of Victims’ Attorneys
  Click to read about the Crime Victims Justice Corps (CVJC) Bootcamp.
• 
  Join Us as a Speaker in 2019!
  Submissions are open for the 2019 Crime Victim Law Conference!
• 
  Fighting for Fairness, Dignity and Respect
  Click to read about NCVLI’s most recent advocacy work in Arizona.
• State v. Bray¸ — P.3d —, No. S064846, 2018 WL 3301268 (Or. July 5, 2018)
  Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sodomy, and one count each of strangulation and fourth-degree assault.  Defendant argued at trial that the victim’s injuries resulted from consensual “rough sex[,]” and had sought access to Google search information and other digital data on the victim’s computer that was created after their encounter.  To obtain the victim’s computer information, defendant filed a pretrial motion to compel the state to issue a search warrant to Google and issued a subpoena duces tecum commanding the victim to bring the computer to court at the time of trial.  Defendant also made a motion at trial when the victim did not appear with the computer for an order compelling the victim to comply with the subpoena and produce the computer.  The trial court denied both motions, as well as defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges, and defendant was convicted.  The appellate court later affirmed the trial court’s denial of both the motion to dismiss and defendant’s motion to compel the state to obtain the search warrant necessary for Google’s production of the victim’s “internet information.”  The court of appeals determined, however, that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to enforce the subpoena duces tecum for the victim’s computer.  Defendant’s convictions were vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.  Defendant appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, challenging the rulings regarding the state’s failure to obtain the Google records sought by defendant.  The state also filed a petition for review, challenging the appellate court’s ruling regarding defendant’s subpoena and the conclusion that defendant’s convictions must be vacated. Because defendant in this case met the threshold showing for the enforcement of the trial subpoena, the trial court could not have found that the evidence had “no potential use” at trial and was therefore required to enforce the trial subpoena. Lastly, because the court concluded that this error was not harmless, the court vacated defendant’s convictions and remanded the case to the trial court to order the victim to produce her computer and subject it to forensic examination, subject to the conditions necessary to protect the victim’s privacy.  Following the completion of the forensic examination, defendant must be permitted to review the results and seek a hearing, at which defendant “must inform the court of the evidence that he would have offered at trial and explain its purpose.”  The trial court will then determine whether to (1) order a new trial or (2) make findings that defendant’s inability to use the subpoenaed information would not have affected the verdict and reinstate defendant’s convictions. 
  
  
• People v. Shorter, — N.W.2d —, 2018 WL 2746384 (Mich. Ct. App. June 7, 2018)
  Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal sexual conduct.  On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by granting the prosecution’s motion to allow the adult victim to testify while accompanied by a support dog and the dog’s handler.  The court had previously found that a child victim could have a support animal while testifying, but had not reached the question of whether an adult victim could.  The court concluded “that there is a fundamental difference between allowing a support animal to accompany a child witness … and allowing the animal to accompany a fully abled adult witness … .”  
• 
  Share Your Input With NCVLI
  Share Your Input With NCVLI
• 
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Ellen Dully
  NCVLI Staff Profile: Ellen Dully