Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
,17+(&28572)$33($/62)7+(67$7(2)25(*21
67$7(2)25(*21 0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\&LUFXLW&RXUW
&DVH1R&5
3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW
Y &$$
%$55<-2(678//DND%DUU\-RH
6WXOO\
'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
$33(//$17¶65(3/<%5,()
$SSHDOIURPWKH-XGJPHQWRIWKH&LUFXLW&RXUW
IRU0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\
+RQRUDEOH-XOLH()UDQW]-XGJH
(51(67*/$11(7 (//(1)526(1%/80
&KLHI'HIHQGHU $WWRUQH\*HQHUDO
&ULPLQDO$SSHOODWH6HFWLRQ %(1-$0,1*870$1
%5(77-$//,1 6ROLFLWRU*HQHUDO
'HSXW\3XEOLF'HIHQGHU -XVWLFH%XLOGLQJ
2IILFHRI3XEOLF'HIHQVH6HUYLFHV &RXUW6WUHHW1(
&RXUW6WUHHW1( 6DOHP25
6DOHP25 EHQMDPLQJXWPDQ#GRMVWDWHRUXV
EUHWWMDOOLQ#RSGVVWDWHRUXV 3KRQH
3KRQH $WWRUQH\VIRU3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW
$WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
L
7$%/(2)&217(176
67$7(0(172)7+(&$6(
1DWXUHRIWKH3URFHHGLQJ
6XPPDU\RI$UJXPHQW
5(3/<72$16:(5672$66,*10(1762)(5525
$UJXPHQW
, 'HIHQGDQWSUHVHUYHGKLVILUVWDVVLJQPHQWRIHUURUWKURXJKKLV
UHSHDWHGUHTXHVWVDQGDWWHPSWVWRDUJXHWKDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUZDV
XQODZIXO
,, 'HIHQGDQWSUHVHUYHGKLVVHFRQGWKURXJKILIWKDVVLJQPHQWVRIHUURU
EHFDXVHKHPDGHDVXIILFLHQWRIIHURISURRI
&21&/86,21
7$%/(2)$87+25,7,(6
&DVHV
State v. Krieger
2U$SS3G
State v. Marbet
2U$SS3G
State v.Riddell
2U$SS3G
6WDWXWHV
2(&
$33(//$17¶65(3/<%5,()
67$7(0(172)7+(&$6(
1DWXUHRIWKH3URFHHGLQJ
2Q6HSWHPEHUWKLVFRXUWJUDQWHGGHIHQGDQW¶VPRWLRQIRUOHDYH
WRILOHDUHSO\EULHI'HIHQGDQWUHSOLHVWRWKHVWDWH¶VDUJXPHQWVWKDWKHIDLOHGWR
SUHVHUYHHLWKHURIKLVDUJXPHQWV
6XPPDU\RI$UJXPHQW
,QKLVRSHQLQJEULHIGHIHQGDQWDUJXHGWKDWWKHWULDOFRXUWHUUHGLQOLPLWLQJ
KLVDUJXPHQWVDJDLQVWWKHODZIXOQHVVRIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUWKDWIRUPHGWKH
DOVRHUUHGLQH[FOXGLQJVHYHUDOLWHPVRIHYLGHQFHWKDWGHIHQGDQWVRXJKWWRDGPLW
DW
,QLWVDQVZHULQJEULHIWKHVWDWHDUJXHVLQSDUWWKDWGHIHQGDQWIDLOHGWR
SUHVHUYHDQ\RIKLVDVVLJQPHQWV$VWRKLVILUVWDVVLJQPHQWWKHVWDWHFRQWHQGV
WKDWKLVDUJXPHQWWRWKHWULDOFRXUWGLIIHUVIURPWKHRQHWKDWKHPDGHRQDSSHDO
5HVS%XWWKDWDUJXPHQWIDLOVEHFDXVHLWPLVUHDGVGHIHQGDQW¶VDUJXPHQWVRQ
DSSHDO7KHDUJXPHQWWKDWGHIHQGDQWPDGHLQWKHWULDOFRXUWLVWKDWWKHFRXUW
VKRXOGKDYHDOORZHGKLPWRFKDOOHQJHWKHODZIXOQHVVRIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU²
DQHVVHQWLDOHOHPHQWRIWKHRIIHQVH+HPDNHVWKHVDPHDUJXPHQWRQDSSHDO
$VWRWKHHYLGHQWLDU\LVVXHVWKHVWDWHDUJXHVWKDWWKRVHDVVLJQPHQWVDUH
QRWSUHVHUYHGEHFDXVHGHIHQGDQWIDLOHGWRPDNHDVXIILFLHQWRIIHURISURRI5HVS
%UDW7KDWDUJXPHQWDOVRIDLOVEHFDXVHGHIHQGDQWPDGHWKHEHVWUHFRUG
WKDWWKHWULDOFRXUWZRXOGDOORZ7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWWKHRIIHUVRISURRIDUH
LQVXIILFLHQWWKHHUURUVDUHQRQHWKHOHVVSUHVHUYHGEHFDXVHWKHWULDOFRXUW
SUHYHQWHGGHIHQGDQWIURPPDNLQJDPRUHGHWDLOHGRIIHU7KXVWKLVFRXUWVKRXOG
UHYHUVHDQGUHPDQG
5(3/<72$16:(5672$66,*10(1762)(5525
$UJXPHQW
, 'HIHQGDQWSUHVHUYHGKLVILUVWDVVLJQPHQWRIHUURUWKURXJKKLV
UHSHDWHGUHTXHVWVDQGDWWHPSWVWRDUJXHWKDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUZDV
XQODZIXO
7KHVWDWHDUJXHVWKDWGHIHQGDQWIDLOHGWRSUHVHUYHKLVDUJXPHQWWKDWWKH
WULDOFRXUWHUUHGZKHQLWEDUUHGKLPIURPDUJXLQJWKDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUZDV
XQODZIXOEHFDXVH³KHQHYHUDOHUWHGWKHWULDOFRXUWWRWKHVSHFLILFUHDVRQKH
DGYDQFHVRQDSSHDOWKDWKHVKRXOGEHDOORZHGWRGRVREHFDXVHWKHPHFKDQLVP
IRUFKDOOHQJLQJWKHRUGHUZDVSURFHGXUDOO\GHILFLHQW´5HVS%UDW
7KDWDUJXPHQWIDLOVEHFDXVHLWLVEDVHGRQDQLQFRUUHFWSUHPLVHWKDW
GHIHQGDQW¶VDUJXPHQWLVEDVHGVROHO\RQWKHGHILFLHQF\LQWKHSURFHGXUDO
PHFKDQLVPVIRUFKDOOHQJLQJWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU5DWKHUWKHUXOLQJWRZKLFK
GHIHQGDQWDVVLJQVHUURULVWKHRQH³SUHFOXGLQJGHIHQGDQWIURPDUJXLQJWKDWWKH
WUHVSDVVDQGH[FOXVLRQRUGHUVZHUHXQODZIXO´$SS%UDW
,WLVWUXHWKDWGHIHQGDQWDUJXHVRQDSSHDOWKDW³>W@KHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUKHUH
SURYLGHDVXIILFLHQWSURFHGXUDOPHFKDQLVPWRFKDOOHQJHLW´$SS%UDW%XW
WKDWSRLQWLVPHUHO\LOOXVWUDWLYHRIKRZGHIHQGDQWFRXOGKDYHFKDOOHQJHGWKH
ODZIXOQHVVRIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUKDGWKHWULDOFRXUWDOORZHGKLPWRPDNH
DUJXPHQWVDERXWWKDWHVVHQWLDOHOHPHQWRIWKHRIIHQVH'HIHQGDQWDOVRFRXOG
KDYHFKDOOHQJHGWKHRUGHUXQGHUState v. Marbet2U$SS3G
DVKHWROGWKHFRXUWKHZRXOGOLNHWRGR
%XWEHFDXVHWKHWULDOFRXUWUHSHDWHGO\DQGXQHTXLYRFDOO\SUHFOXGHGall
DUJXPHQWVDERXWWKHODZIXOQHVVRIH[FOXVLRQRUGHULWLVLPSRVVLEOHWRLGHQWLI\
DOORIWKHZD\VLQZKLFKGHIHQGDQWPLJKWKDYHFKDOOHQJHGWKHODZIXOQHVVRIWKH
RUGHU
x ³>7+(&2857@7KH&RXUW¶VQRWJRLQJWRDOORZWKLVWREHDWULDODERXW
ZKHWKHU>WKH@H[FOXVLRQZDVODZIXORUQRW´7U
x ³>7+(&2857@7KHODZIXORUGHUVWDQGVWKDWH[FOXGHG\RX$QGVR
ZKHWKHU\RXEHOLHYHGLWZDVODZIXORUQRWRU
EHOLHYHWKDWWKLV
ZLWQHVVZDVQRWEDVLQJWKHUHDVRQIRUH[FOXVLRQRQDODZIXOEDVLVLVQRW
JHUPDQHWRWKHLVVXHWKDW¶VEHLQJWULHGWRGD\´7U
x ³>7+(&2857@6R\RXZLOOQRWEHSHUPLWWHGWRDUJXHWKDWDVDGHIHQVH
RUDVDYLRODWLRQWKDWZH¶YHFUHDWHGDQXQODZIXORUGHU´7U
'HIHQGDQW¶VUHSHDWHGDWWHPSWVDQGUHTXHVWVWRDUJXHWKHODZIXOQHVVRI
WKHRUGHUVHUYHGWRSUHVHUYHKLVILUVWDVVLJQPHQWRIHUURU
,, 'HIHQGDQWSUHVHUYHGKLVVHFRQGWKURXJKILIWKDVVLJQPHQWVRIHUURU
EHFDXVHKHPDGHDVXIILFLHQWRIIHURISURRI
$VIRUGHIHQGDQW¶VRWKHUDVVLJQPHQWVRIHUURUWRWKHWULDOFRXUWVH[FOXVLRQ
RIYDULRXVSLHFHVRIGRFXPHQWDU\DQGWHVWLPRQLDOHYLGHQFHWKDWVXSSRUWHGKLV
DUJXPHQWVUHJDUGLQJWKHODZIXOQHVVRIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUGHIHQGDQWDOVR
SUHVHUYHGWKRVHHUURUV'HIHQGDQW¶VRIIHURISURRIZDVVXIILFLHQWIRUWKLVFRXUW
WRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUWKHWULDOFRXUWHUUHGDQGDQ\GHILFLHQFLHVLQWKRVHRIIHUV
RISURRIUHVXOWHGIURPWKHWULDOFRXUW¶VOLPLWDWLRQVRQGHIHQGDQW¶VDWWHPSWVWR
GLVFXVVWKHFRQWHQWRIWKHGLVSXWHGHYLGHQFH
$QRIIHURISURRI³PD\RFFXULQQDUUDWLYHIRUPWKURXJKDGHVFULSWLRQE\
FRXQVHORIWKHZLWQHVV¶VLQWHQGHGWHVWLPRQ\´State v. Krieger2U$SS
ZKHQWKHQDWXUHRIWKHH[FOXGHGHYLGHQFHLVDGHTXDWHO\UHIOHFWHGLQWKH
DUJXPHQWRIFRXQVHOWRWKHFRXUW/LNHZLVHQRRIIHURISURRILVQHFHVVDU\ZKHQ
$VGLVFXVVHGDERYHEHIRUHWULDOWKHFRXUWUXOHGWKDWDQ\DUJXPHQW
UHJDUGLQJWKHODZIXOQHVVRIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUZDVQRWSURSHU7U$SS
%UDW6KRUWO\DIWHUWKDWWKHWULDOFRXUWDOVRPDGHDFDWHJRULFDOUXOLQJWKDWLW
ZRXOGQRWDOORZDQ\HYLGHQFHUHJDUGLQJGHIHQGDQW¶VSULRULQWHUDFWLRQVZLWK
(PPDQXHO+RVSLWDOLQFOXGLQJWKHLQFLGHQWWKDWOHGWRWKHH[FOXVLRQ
RUGHU³>7+(&2857@,¶PJRLQJWRGLVDOORZDQ\LQWURGXFWLRQRIDQ\HYLGHQFH
RIRWKHUWLPHV\RX¶YHEHHQDW(PDQXHO+RVSLWDOSULRUWR1RYHPEHUWK´7U
7KDWUXOLQJLVWKHVXEMHFWRIGHIHQGDQW¶VWKLUGDVVLJQPHQWRIHUURU$SS%U
DW
,QOLQHZLWKWKDWUXOLQJWKHFRXUWUHIXVHGWRHQWHUWDLQDQ\VLJQLILFDQW
GLVFXVVLRQRIVSHFLILFLWHPVRIHYLGHQFHWKDWGHIHQGDQWVRXJKWWRDGPLW
UHJDUGLQJWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU)RUH[DPSOHZKHQGHIHQGDQWDWWHPSWHGWRFURVV
H[FOXVLRQRUGHUWKHVWDWHREMHFWHGWKDWLWZDV³DFROODWHUDOPDWWHU>@´7U
7KHWULDOFRXUWDJUHHGDQGWROGGHIHQGDQWWKDWKHFRXOGQRWLQWURGXFHDQ\
HYLGHQFHDERXWWKHEDVLVIRUWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU³>7+(&2857@>7@KH
&RXUW¶VUXOLQJZDVWKDWWKLVRUGHULVLQHIIHFWDQGWKDWWKLVLVQRWJRLQJWR
UHOLWLJDWHRUOLWLJDWHWKHEDVLVIRUWKHRUGHU ,¶PQRWJRLQJWRDOORZ>\RX@WR
JREHKLQGWKDWRUGHUDQGGLVFXVVZKDWEURXJKWDERXWWKDWRUGHU7KHRUGHU
VWDQGV´7U
$WWKDWSRLQWGHIHQGDQWDWWHPSWHGWRH[SODLQWKHWHVWLPRQ\WKDWKHZRXOG
OLNHWRHOLFLWIURP'RWVRQLQFOXGLQJWKDW'RWVRQEDVHGKLVGHFLVLRQWRLPSRVH
WKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHURQLPSURSHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQV7U7KHFRXUWUHLWHUDWHG
LWVUXOLQJDQGWROGGHIHQGDQWLQQRXQFHUWDLQWHUPVWKDWLWZRXOGQRWHQWHUWDLQ
DQ\HYLGHQFHRUDUJXPHQWVDERXWWKHEDVLVIRUWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU
7+(&2857<HDK,WLVLPSURSHUWRJRLQWR7KHODZIXO
RUGHUVWDQGVWKDWH[FOXGHG\RX$QGVRZKHWKHU\RXEHOLHYHGLW
ZDVODZIXORUQRWRUWKHUHZHUHFLUFXPVWDQFHVWKDW\RXNQRZ
ZKHUHLQZKLFK\RXYLHZ±EHOLHYHWKDWWKLVZLWQHVVZDVQRWEDVLQJ
WKHUHDVRQIRUH[FOXVLRQRQDODZIXOEDVLVLVQRWJHUPDQHWRWKH
LVVXHWKDW¶VEHLQJWULHGWRGD\7KH
H[FOXVLRQVWDQGVDQG\RX
ZHUHWRDELGHE\WKDWH[FOXVLRQH[FHSWIRUHPHUJHQF\PHGLFDO
WUHDWPHQW6R
that’s the end of this line of questioning´
7UHPSKDVLVDGGHG
'HIHQGDQWFODULILHGWKDW³,¶PMXVWJRLQJWRHQWHUP\REMHFWLRQ IRU
WKHUHFRUG´DQGWKHFRXUWUHVSRQGHG³<RXUREMHFWLRQ¶VQRWHG´7U
,QVXPZKHQGHIHQGDQWDWWHPSWHGWRPDNHDQRIIHURISURRIWRVXSSRUW
KLVVHFRQGDVVLJQPHQWRIHUURUWKHWULDOFRXUWWROGKLPWKDWLWZRXOGQRW
HQWHUWDLQDQ\HYLGHQFHUHJDUGLQJWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUDQGZKHQGHIHQGDQW
IXUWKHUDWWHPSWHGWRSUHVHUYHWKHDUJXPHQWWKHFRXUWWROGKLPWKDWKLVREMHFWLRQ
ZDV³QRWHG´IRUWKHUHFRUG7KXVGHIHQGDQWGLGDOOWKDWKHFRXOGGRWRPDNHDQ
RIIHURISURRIDQGDQ\GHILFLHQF\LQWKDWVKRZLQJZDVWKHWULDOFRXUW¶VIDXOW
)RUWKHVDPHUHDVRQVGHIHQGDQW¶VIRXUWKDQGILIWKDVVLJQPHQWVRIHUURU
UHJDUGLQJWKHH[FOXVLRQRIGHIHQGDQW¶VPHGLFDOUHFRUGVDUHSUHVHUYHG7KH
FRXUW¶VUXOLQJVH[FOXGLQJWKDWHYLGHQFHRFFXUUHGDIWHUWKHH[FKDQJHVH[FHUSWHG
DERYHDQGWKXVWKHWULDOFRXUWKDGDOUHDG\PDGHFOHDUWKDWLWZRXOG
FDWHJRULFDOO\H[FOXGHDQ\HYLGHQFHUHJDUGLQJWKHYDOLGLW\RIWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHU
1RQHWKHOHVVGHIHQGDQWRIIHUHGWKRVHUHFRUGVWRWKHWULDOFRXUWPDUNLQJWKHPDV
([KLELWVDQG7U³>'()(1'$17@>,@QRUGHUIRU\RXWRGRWKH
JDWHNHHSLQJSURFHVVZLWKDOOGXHUHVSHFW\RXKDYHWRNQRZZKDW\RX¶UH
JDWHNHHSLQJULJKW"6R,¶OOPDUNWKHVHDVH[KLELWVDQGWKHQ,¶OOMXVWRIIHUWKHP
$QGWKHQ\RXFDQGHFLGH>@´'HIHQGDQWH[SODLQHGWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKHUHFRUGV
ZKLFKLQFOXGHGKLVPHGLFDOGLDJQRVHVDQGH[SODLQHGKRZWKHUHFRUGVVXSSRUWHG
KLVWKHRU\WKDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRUGHUZDVXQODZIXO7U7KH
SURVHFXWRUKDGDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHYLHZWKHUHFRUGVDQGXQGHUVWRRGWKDW
GHIHQGDQWZDVRIIHULQJKLVPHGLFDOUHFRUGVWRHVWDEOLVKWKDWKHKDGDGLVDELOLW\
WKDWUHTXLUHGUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQ7U7KHWULDOFRXUW
H[FOXGHGWKHH[KLELWVEDVHGRQLWVGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDWGHIHQGDQW¶VPHGLFDO
GLDJQRVHVDQGDFFRPPRGDWLRQDUJXPHQWVZHUH³RXWVLGHWKHVFRSHRIWKLV
FKDUJHRI&ULPLQDO7UHVSDVVLQWKHVHFRQGGHJUHH´7U7KXVWKHSDUWLHV
DQGWKHFRXUWXQGHUVWRRGWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKHH[KLELWVDQGZKDWGHIHQGDQW
ZDQWHGWRXVHWKHPIRU
)RUWKRVHUHDVRQVGHIHQGDQWSUHVHUYHGKLVDVVLJQPHQWVRIHUURU7KHVWDWH
KDVQRWPDGHDQ\DUJXPHQWLQUHVSRQVHWRWKHPHULWVRIGHIHQGDQW¶VDUJXPHQW
$QGIRUWKHUHDVRQVVWDWHGLQGHIHQGDQW¶VRSHQLQJEULHIWKHHUURUVZHUHQRW
KDUPOHVV7KXVWKHWULDOFRXUWHUUHGDQGWKRVHHUURUVUHTXLUHUHYHUVDO
&21&/86,21
)RUWKRVHUHDVRQVDQGWKRVHVWDWHGLQKLVRSHQLQJEULHIGHIHQGDQW
UHVSHFWIXOO\DVNVWKLVFRXUWWRUHYHUVHKLVFRQYLFWLRQDQGUHPDQGWRWKHWULDO
FRXUW
5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG
(51(67*/$11(7
&+,()'()(1'(5
&5,0,1$/$33(//$7(6(&7,21
2)),&(2)38%/,&'()(16(6(59,&(6
(6LJQHG
Signed
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
By Brett Allin at 8:53 am, Oct 03, 2018
%5(77-$//,126%
'(387<38%/,&'()(1'(5
%UHWW-$OOLQ#RSGVVWDWHRUXV
$WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
%DUU\-RH6WXOO
&(57,),&$7(2)&203/,$1&(:,7+25$3
%ULHIOHQJWK
,FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVEULHIFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHZRUGFRXQWOLPLWDWLRQLQ25$3DQG
WKHZRUGFRXQWRIWKLVEULHILVZRUGV
7\SHVL]H
,FHUWLI\WKDWWKHVL]HRIWKHW\SHLQWKLVEULHILVQRWVPDOOHUWKDQSRLQWIRUERWKWKH
WH[WRIWKHEULHIDQGIRRWQRWHV
127,&(2)),/,1*$1'3522)2)6(59,&(
,FHUWLI\WKDW,GLUHFWHGWKHRULJLQDO$SSHOODQW
V5HSO\%ULHIWREHILOHGZLWKWKH
$SSHOODWH&RXUW$GPLQLVWUDWRU$SSHOODWH&RXUWV5HFRUGV6HFWLRQ6WDWH6WUHHW
6DOHP2UHJRQRQ2FWREHU
,IXUWKHUFHUWLI\WKDWXSRQUHFHLSWRIWKHFRQILUPDWLRQHPDLOVWDWLQJWKDWWKH
GRFXPHQWKDVEHHQDFFHSWHGE\WKHH)LOLQJV\VWHPWKLV$SSHOODQW
V5HSO\%ULHIZLOO
EHH6HUYHGSXUVXDQWWR25$3UHJDUGLQJHOHFWURQLFVHUYLFHRQUHJLVWHUHG
H)LOHUVRQ%HQMDPLQ*XWPDQ6ROLFLWRU*HQHUDODWWRUQH\IRU3ODLQWLII
5HVSRQGHQW
5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG
(51(67*/$11(7
&+,()'()(1'(5
&5,0,1$/$33(//$7(6(&7,21
2)),&(2)38%/,&'()(16(6(59,&(6
(6LJQHG
Signed
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
By Brett Allin at 8:53 am, Oct 03, 2018
%5(77-$//,126%
'(387<38%/,&'()(1'(5
%UHWW-$OOLQ#RSGVVWDWHRUXV
$WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
%DUU\-RH6WXOO
2IILFHRI3XEOLF'HIHQVH6HUYLFHV$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQ
&RXUW6W1(6DOHP2UHJRQ
7HOHSKRQH)D[
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
_______________
v.
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________
9/18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific,
186 Or App 696, 64 P3d 1193,
adhered to as clarified,
187 Or App 472 (2003) ............................................................................14
i
OTECC v. Co-Gen,
168 Or App 466, 7 P3d 594 (2000),
rev den, 332 Or 137 (2001) ......................................................................14
State v. Ausmus,
336 Or 493, 85 P3d 864 (2003)................................................................11
State v. Davis,
336 Or 19, 77 P3d 1111 (2003)................................................................10
State v. Hazlett,
269 Or App 483, 345 P3d 482 (2015) ........................................................8
State v. Koenig,
238 Or App 297, 242 P3d 649 (2010) ......................................................13
State v. Marbett,
32 Or App 67, 573 P2d 736 (1978) ..........................................................11
State v. Morgan,
251 Or App 99, 284 P3d 496 (2012) ....................................................8, 10
State v. Riddell,
172 Or App 675, 21 P3d 128 (2001) ........................................................13
State v. Walker,
350 Or 540, 258 P3d 637 (2011)................................................................7
State v. Wyatt,
331 Or 335, 15 P3d 22 (2000)....................................................................7
Other Authorities
ORAP 5.45(4)(c).................................................................................................14
ii
RESPONDENT’S ANSWERING BRIEF
_______________
Summary of Argument
Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal trespass after he
went to the hospital for treatment in the emergency room but then wandered
into other areas of the hospital where he was not authorized to be, then refused
On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his requests
to argue and present evidence challenging a 2011 exclusion order that only
allowed him to enter the hospital for emergency medical treatment. According
to defendant the trial court should have allowed him to challenge that order as
order” for purposes of the criminal trespass statute. But defendant’s arguments
to the jury that the 2011 order was unlawful because the process for challenging
trial court erroneously excluded evidence supporting his argument that the
because defendant failed to make a sufficient offer of proof. In any event, any
error was harmless because regardless of whether the 2011 exclusion order was
lawful, on the charged occasion defendant refused to leave the hospital’s private
leave.
assign error to any trial court ruling or other otherwise present any coherent
argument that the trial court erred. It therefore provides this court with no basis
for reversal.
COMBINED ARGUMENT
On appeal from his second-degree criminal trespass conviction,
defendant contends the trial court erred by precluding him from presenting
represented himself at trial, did not preserve his first argument and did not
present a sufficient offer of proof for his second argument. In any event, any
A. Background
In 2011, Legacy Emanuel Hospital issued defendant an exclusion order
that prohibited him “from coming onto the property or premises of any Legacy
medical care.” (Tr 449-50; ER 2). To enter the property for other reasons,
defendant would first need to obtain permission from “an officer of the Security
emergency department to receive emergency care. (Tr 575). Later that night,
Legacy security officer David Davies—who was aware the exclusion order that
department, he saw defendant leave the bathroom and walk further into the
hospital rather than take the nearest exit. (Tr 472, 475). Davies followed
defendant that he had to leave because the exclusion order did not allow him to
stay in the hospital after his ER visit. (Tr 478-80). Defendant replied, “Nope. I
am not stopping.” (Tr 480). As he tried to move further into the hospital,
4
Davies stepped in front of him and directed him back toward the emergency
room exit. (Tr 480). At that late hour, the main hospital was closed and only
open to patients, visitors of patients, and people who had direct business in the
hospital. (Tr 479). Nevertheless, defendant again refused to leave and insisted
that he was “going to go sit in the lobby.” (Tr 480). When Davies again told
him he had to leave, defendant responded, “Nope. I’m not.” (Tr 480). As they
walked back toward the lobby, defendant started yelling, “I’m refusing to
leave,” and “I’m going to go sit down and I’m going to stay.” (Tr 480).
At that point, defendant became “very, very, very loud” and started to
swing his arms around as Davies and another security officer repeatedly told
him that he needed to leave. (Tr 480-81). Defendant charged and flailed his
arms as he tried to get past the officers, and declared “that he was going to the
lobby and he was going to sit and [that the security officers] could not tell him
to leave.” (Tr 481). As he kept trying to force his way through, he came into
chest-to-chest contact with the other officer, which prompted Davies to grab his
arm to pull him away. (Tr 483). In response, defendant became increasingly
violent and the officers took him to the ground. (Tr 483). They cuffed him and
informed him that he they were placing him under arrest for criminal trespass.
(Tr 483). When the officers tried to escort defendant out of the hospital, he
went limp and refused to stand up. (Tr 483-84). He lay down on the floor in a
hallway, making it difficult for people going into the emergency department to
5
get by him. (Tr 483-84). Eventually, a Portland police officer arrived and took
defendant sought to argue to the jury that the 2011 order was unlawful because
it was issued in violation of disability discrimination laws. (Tr 293, 328). The
trial court denied his request to do so. (Tr 352). The trial court also denied
asserted would establish that the 2011 exclusion order was unlawful. (Tr 454-
unlawfully” means:
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being
lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being
lawfully directed not to enter the premises;
ORS 164.205(3).
6
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in two respects,
order. On that point, defendant’s argument is narrow. He contends that the trial
court erroneously ruled that defendant needed to challenge the 2011 order in
civil proceeding and that he could not collaterally challenge it in the criminal
proceeding. (App Br 13-14). In his view, the court erred because the exclusion
civil proceeding. (App Br 14). In particular, he argues that the exclusion order
on its face failed “to provide any procedural mechanism to appeal the exclusion
order.” (App Br 14). Accordingly, he reasons that he “should not have been
barred from collaterally challenging [the exclusion] and any trespass order
based on it.” (App Br 14). The problem with that narrow argument, however,
court in a manner “specific enough to ensure that the trial court [could] identify
7
its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error
15 P3d 22 (2000). Here, while defendant broadly argued to the trial court that
laws, he never alerted the trial court to the specific reason he advances on
By failing to raise that issue below, defendant has denied the state the
challenge the exclusion order—a process that he argues for the first time on
appeal was insufficient based solely on the fact that the face of the order did not
specify any process. Because defendant failed to provide the either the state or
the trial court to address his argument this court should not consider it. See
State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 552, 258 P3d 637 (2011) (explaining that the focus
of the preservation inquiry is on “whether a party has given opponents and the
that would have supported his argument that the 2011 exclusion order was
unlawful because it—and the 2015 order to leave that relied on it—were based
Br 14). Specifically, he contends that the trial court “erred in barring evidence
about the 2011 incident and defendant’s medical records supporting and
“In a case in which a court has excluded evidence, the error is preserved
if ‘the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was
apparent from the context within which the questions were asked.’” State v.
Hazlett, 269 Or App 483, 492, 345 P3d 482 (2015) (quoting OEC 103(1)(b)).
The purpose of that requirement is to ensure that “appellate courts are able to
determine whether a trial court erred in excluding evidence and whether that
error was likely to have affected the trial’s result[.]” State v. Morgan, 251 Or
App 99, 104, 284 P3d 496 (2012). The offer of proof “can be made either by
Here, defendant first challenges the trial court’s refusal to allow him to
elicit testimony before the jury about the 2011 incident. Defendant first
who issued the order. (Tr 454). After the trial court sustained the prosecutor’s
coffee at a café in the hospital at the time, defendant made no offer of testimony
through question and answer and made only brief remarks about what he hoped
falsely accused him of smelling of alcohol and of being “filthy.” (Tr 457-58).
The only other evidence defendant offered with respect to his claim that
the exclusion order was the product of disability discrimination was his 2015
offers of proof. Even assuming the trial court erred by not allowing defendant
falsely accused of being drunk and dirty when he was excluded in 2011did
from Central Pain Syndrome. In the same way, his 2015 medical records
indicating that he suffered from that condition did nothing to suggest that the
2011 exclusion order was issued for the purpose of discriminating against him
as a person with that condition. Put differently, defendant failed to submit any
evidence by way of an offer of proof that would tend to show that the 2011
therefore unlawful.
show that the 2011 order was issued for the improper purpose of discriminating
against defendant because he suffered from central pain syndrome, this court
cannot determine whether any error the trial court made in excluding evidence
“was likely to affect the trial’s result.” Morgan, 251 Or App at 104. For that
verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003). Here, any error in
order was harmless because, even assuming the 2011 order was unlawful,
11
defendant had no right to remain in the hospital in 2015, and thus was lawfully
ordered to leave.
left the hospital’s emergency department and wandered into other areas of the
hospital where he was not authorized to be. In fact, those areas of the hospital
were not open to the general public at that time of night. (Tr 479).
resisted efforts to escort him out. Accordingly, defendant was not charged with
criminal trespass simply because he violated the 2011 order, but also because he
remained in the hospital after he was directed to leave. The record shows that
Davies, as a security officer for the hospital, was “a person in charge” for
leave the hospital after being ordered to do so and instead declared, “I’m
refusing to leave.” Defendant then physically resisted efforts to escort him out.
order must be obeyed at the risk of a conviction for trespass.” State v. Marbett,
32 Or App 67, 73, 573 P2d 736 (1978). Such an order is “lawful” when it is “is
authorized by, and not contrary to, substantive law.” State v. Ausmus, 336 Or
493, 504, 85 P3d 864 (2003). In this case, the testimony established that
12
leave does not turn on whether or not the 2011 exclusion order was lawful.
Defendant was on the hospital’s private property and defendant has not cited
any authority for the proposition that he had right to remain there. Defendant
statutory right” that he had to remain in areas of the hospital he was not
authorized to be in. To the contrary, defendant concedes that his “sole defense
to the charge” was that “the exclusion order was unlawful because it violated
whether the 2011 exclusion order was lawful. Indeed, in the state’s closing
argument the prosecutor did not argue that the jury should convict because
defendant violated the 2011 exclusion order. (Tr 708-716). Rather, he focused
defendant’s knowledge that he was in place where he had no right to be. (See
This case thus differs from two cases defendant cites, State v. Koenig,
238 Or App 297, 242 P3d 649 (2010), and State v. Riddell, 172 Or App 675, 21
P3d 128 (2001), both of which involved the exclusion of defendants from
publicly owned spaces that were open to the public, where the defendants
otherwise had a right to be. In Koenig, the defendant was cited for violating an
order excluding him from the Washington County Public Services Building.
238 Or App at 304. Because the exclusion notice restricted the defendant’s
access to petition the government but did not provide adequate process to
contest the notice, the notice was unlawful. Id. at 311. Similarly, in Riddell,
defendant was cited for violating an order excluding him from another public
space, Portland’s Pioneer Square. 172 Or App at 678. Moreover, in both cases,
again contrast to this case, the defendants were cited for entering the premises
in violation of prior exclusion orders, and not also for remaining on the
premises after being directed to leave. Koenig, 238 Or App at 305; Riddell, 172
Or App at 678.
For those reasons, any error the trial court made in preventing defendant
from challenging the lawfulness of the 2011 order had little likelihood of
assign error to any ruling of the post-conviction court, develop any legal
14
of a series of assertions that he, as a person with disability, was treated unfairly
argument that the trial court erred in any particular respect provides this court
with no basis for reversal. See ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“[t]he court may decline to
consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to
find the error”); Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or
App 696, 701 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adhered to as clarified, 187 Or App 472 (2003)
(this court will not speculate as to what a party’s unamplified argument might
be); OTECC v. Co-Gen, 168 Or App 466, 488, 7 P3d 594 (2000), rev den, 332
CONCLUSION
This court should affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
BENJAMIN GUTMAN
Solicitor General
Ernest Lannet and Brett J. Allin, attorneys for appellant, by using the court's
I certify that (1) this brief complies with the word-count limitation in
ORAP 5.05(1)(b) and (2) the word-count of this brief (as described in ORAP
5.05(1)(a)) is 3,272 words. I further certify that the size of the type in this brief
is not smaller than 14 point for both the text of the brief and footnotes as
PME:mkf/9159414
,17+(&28572)$33($/62)7+(67$7(2)25(*21
67$7(2)25(*21 0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\&LUFXLW&RXUW
&DVH1R&5
3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW
Y &$$
%$55<-2(678//DND%DUU\-RH
6WXOO\
'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
$33(//$17¶6PRO SE6833/(0(17$/23(1,1*%5,()
$SSHDOIURPWKH-XGJPHQWRIWKH&LUFXLW&RXUW
IRU0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\
+RQRUDEOH-XOLH()UDQW]-XGJH
(51(67*/$11(7 (//(1)526(1%/80
&KLHI'HIHQGHU $WWRUQH\*HQHUDO
&ULPLQDO$SSHOODWH6HFWLRQ %(1-$0,1*870$1
%5(77-$//,1 6ROLFLWRU*HQHUDO
'HSXW\3XEOLF'HIHQGHU -XVWLFH%XLOGLQJ
2IILFHRI3XEOLF'HIHQVH6HUYLFHV &RXUW6WUHHW1(
&RXUW6WUHHW1( 6DOHP25
6DOHP25 EHQMDPLQJXWPDQ#GRMVWDWHRUXV
EUHWWMDOOLQ#RSGVVWDWHRUXV 3KRQH
3KRQH $WWRUQH\VIRU3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW
$WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
'HIHQGDQWKDVDWDOOWLPHVGHFODUHGGHIHQGDQWLVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\
DQGKDVLQYRNHGWKHSURWHFWLRQVRI256$ZKLFKSURKLELWVGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
EDVHGRQGLVDELOLW\LQSODFHVRISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQDQGE\VWDWHJRYHUQPHQW
DQGLQYRNHGIHGHUDO$'$SURWHFWLRQV7KH$'$LVUHIHUHQFHGLQ256$
2UHJRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLYH5XOHV&KDSWHULQWHUSUHWVDQGHQIRUFHVWKH
SURYLVLRQVRI256$WKURXJKWKHHQDEOLQJVWDWXWH256$7KH
GHILQLWLRQVIRU256&KDSWHU$LQFOXGH256$ZKLFKGHILQHV
³8QODZIXOSUDFWLFH´WRLQFOXGHDSUDFWLFHWKDWYLRODWHVDUXOHDGRSWHGE\WKH
FRPPLVVLRQHUIRUWKHHQIRUFHPHQWRIWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKLVFKDSWHU
'HIHQGDQWDUJXHVWKLVFDVHKDVDGHIHFWLQMXULVGLFWLRQEHFDXVHGHIHQGDQWLV
DSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\DQGWKHSODFHRISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQYLRODWHG
GHIHQGDQW
VFLYLOULJKWVSULRUWRDUUHVWDQGWKHQDJDLQZLWKWKHDUUHVWDQGDJDLQVW
2UHJRQDQGIHGHUDOODZWKURXJKVXEVHTXHQWSURVHFXWLRQSRVVLEOHRQO\RQFHWKH
SXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQZDVDLGHGDQGDEHWWHGE\WKHVWDWHWKURXJKWKLVFDVH
$3ROLF\,WLVGHFODUHGWREHWKHSXEOLFSROLF\RI2UHJRQWR
JXDUDQWHHLQGLYLGXDOVWKHIXOOHVWSRVVLEOHSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKHVRFLDODQG
HFRQRPLFOLIHRIWKHVWDWHWRHQJDJHLQUHPXQHUDWLYHHPSOR\PHQWWRXVHDQG
HQMR\SODFHVRISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQUHVRUWRUDPXVHPHQWWRSDUWLFLSDWH
LQDQGUHFHLYHWKHEHQHILWVRIWKHVHUYLFHVSURJUDPVDQGDFWLYLWLHVRIVWDWH
JRYHUQPHQWDQGWRVHFXUHKRXVLQJDFFRPPRGDWLRQVRIWKHLUFKRLFHZLWKRXW
GLVFULPLQDWLRQRQWKHEDVLVRIGLVDELOLW\
7KHJXDUDQWHHVH[SUHVVHGLQVXEVHFWLRQRIWKLVVHFWLRQDUHKHUHE\
GHFODUHGWREHWKHSROLF\RIWKH6WDWHRI2UHJRQWRSURWHFWDQG256
$WR$VKDOOEHFRQVWUXHGWRHIIHFWXDWHVXFKSROLF\
>)RUPHUO\FFF@
2$5&KDSWHULQWHUSUHWVDQGHQIRUFHVWKHSURYLVLRQVRI256$
LQFOXGLQJGLVFULPLQDWLRQE\VWDWHJRYHUQPHQWDQGWKH2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQW
GHILQHGDVSDUWRIVWDWHJRYHUQPHQWLQ2$52$5
VWDWHV'LVFULPLQDWLRQDJDLQVWLQGLYLGXDOVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVE\SODFHVRISXEOLF
DFFRPPRGDWLRQZKLFKLQFOXGHSXEOLFERGLHVZLWKVRPHH[FHSWLRQVLVVXEMHFWWR
256$$DQG2$5WR
$VGHILQHGLQ256$EIRUWKHSXUSRVHVRI256&KDSWHU$
2UHJRQLVDSHUVRQ
'HIHQGDQWLVDSHUVRQZLWKDQHXURORJLFDOFRQGLWLRQ&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPH
DQGVRPHWLPHVFDQ
WYRFDOL]HDQGPHHWV$'$DQG256$FULWHULDDQGKDV
DGLVDELOLW\5HTXLUHGUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQVRUPRGLILFDWLRQVDUHGHWHUPLQHG
RQDFDVHE\FDVHEDVLV
$'HVFULSWLRQRIGLVDELOLW\IRUSXUSRVHVRI256$WR
$$QLQGLYLGXDOKDVDGLVDELOLW\IRUWKHSXUSRVHVRI256
$WR$LIWKHLQGLYLGXDOPHHWVDQ\RQHRIWKH
IROORZLQJFULWHULD
D7KHLQGLYLGXDOKDVDSK\VLFDORUPHQWDOLPSDLUPHQWWKDW
VXEVWDQWLDOO\OLPLWVRQHRUPRUHPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLWLHVRIWKHLQGLYLGXDO
E7KHLQGLYLGXDOKDVDUHFRUGRIKDYLQJDSK\VLFDORUPHQWDO
LPSDLUPHQWWKDWVXEVWDQWLDOO\OLPLWVRQHRUPRUHPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLWLHV
RIWKHLQGLYLGXDO)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVSDUDJUDSKDQLQGLYLGXDOKDV
DUHFRUGRIKDYLQJDSK\VLFDORUPHQWDOLPSDLUPHQWLIWKHLQGLYLGXDO
KDVDKLVWRU\RIRUKDVEHHQPLVFODVVLILHGDVKDYLQJDSK\VLFDORU
PHQWDOLPSDLUPHQWWKDWVXEVWDQWLDOO\OLPLWVRQHRUPRUHPDMRUOLIH
DFWLYLWLHVRIWKHLQGLYLGXDO
$FWLYLWLHVDQGIXQFWLRQVWKDWDUHFRQVLGHUHGPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLWLHVIRU
WKHSXUSRVHRIGHWHUPLQLQJLIDQLQGLYLGXDOKDVDGLVDELOLW\LQFOXGHEXW
DUHQRWOLPLWHGWR
T&RPPXQLFDWLQJ
Y,QWHUDFWLQJZLWK
RWKHUV
]2SHUDWLRQRIDPDMRUERGLO\IXQFWLRQLQFOXGLQJEXWQRW
OLPLWHGWR
&
QHXURORJLFDO
IXQFWLRQV
2UHJRQ
VSXEOLFSROLF\DQGFLYLOULJKWVOHJLVODWLRQJXDUDQWHHWRSURWHFW
SHUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVLQFOXGLQJGLVDELOLWLHVRISHRSOHPDLQWDLQLQJRWKHUDELOLWLHV
DQGGLVDELOLWLHVIURPFRQGLWLRQVZKLFKDUHHSLVRGLFRULQUHPLVVLRQ256
$
$QLQGLYLGXDOLVVXEVWDQWLDOO\OLPLWHGLQDPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLW\LIWKH
LQGLYLGXDOKDVDQLPSDLUPHQWKDGDQLPSDLUPHQWRULVSHUFHLYHGDV
KDYLQJDQLPSDLUPHQWWKDWUHVWULFWVRQHRUPRUHPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLWLHVRI
WKHLQGLYLGXDODVFRPSDUHGWRPRVWSHRSOHLQWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQ
$QLPSDLUPHQWQHHGQRWSUHYHQWRUVLJQLILFDQWO\RUVHYHUHO\UHVWULFW
WKHLQGLYLGXDOIURPSHUIRUPLQJDPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLW\LQRUGHUWREH
FRQVLGHUHGVXEVWDQWLDOO\OLPLWLQJ$QLPSDLUPHQWWKDWVXEVWDQWLDOO\
OLPLWVRQHPDMRUOLIHDFWLYLW\RIWKHLQGLYLGXDOQHHGQRWOLPLWRWKHU
PDMRUOLIHDFWLYLWLHVRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOAn impairment that is episodic
or in remission is considered to substantially limit a major life activity
of the individual if the impairment would substantially limit a major
life activity of the individual when the impairment is active.
1RQHWKHOHVVQRWHYHU\LPSDLUPHQWZLOOFRQVWLWXWHDGLVDELOLW\ZLWKLQ
WKHPHDQLQJRIWKLVVHFWLRQHPSKDVLVDGGHG
7KH2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQWKDVEHHQELDVHGDQGRSHUDWHGRXWVLGHWKH
OLPLWDWLRQVRI2562QFHGHIHQGDQWZDVLGHQWLILHGDVDSHUVRQZLWKD
GLVDELOLW\WKHVWDWHKDGDGXW\WRLQYHVWLJDWHDQGH[SORUHUHDVRQDEOH
DFFRPPRGDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJPRGLILFDWLRQVWRSROLFLHVDQGSUDFWLFHVWRSUHYHQW
DGYHUVHLPSDFWV
2SWLRQVDYDLODEOHDVDFFRPPRGDWLRQVLQFOXGHGWRFKRRVHQRWWRSURVHFXWH
WKHGHIHQGDQWRUGLVPLVVRUPRUHDSSURSULDWHO\YDFDWHWKHFDVHRUWROLPLWWKH
GHOD\VJHWWLQJGHIHQGDQWRXWRIFXVWRG\EHIRUHWKHFRXUWIRUWKHIHZHVWQXPEHURI
DSSHDUDQFHVDQGWRDVSHHG\WULDODQGWRKDYHGHIHQGDQWDSSHDUEHIRUHDMXGJH
DEOHWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHQDWXUHDQGFRPSOH[LW\RIWKHGHIHQGDQW
VGLVDELOLW\DQGWKH
GHIHQVHVDYDLODEOHWRGHIHQGDQW
,QVWHDGGHIHQGDQWDSSHDUHGLQFRXUWGR]HQVRIWLPHVEHIRUHRYHUVL[
GLIIHUHQWMXGJHVKHDULQJWKLVFDVHZLWKHYHQPRUHGLIIHUHQWFRXUWDSSRLQWHGGHIHQVH
DWWRUQH\VDQGPDQ\GLIIHUHQWGHSXW\GLVWULFWDWWRUQH\VSURVHFXWLQJWKLVFDVH1R
RQHJDWKHUHGLQVWLWXWLRQDOPHPRU\H[FHSWGHIHQGDQWZKRZDVEXUGHQHGWRLQIRUP
HYHU\RQHHOVHRIKDYLQJDGLVDELOLW\HDFKWLPHDQGVKRXOGQRWKDYHEHHQ $IWHUD
WZRDQGDKDOIKRXUKHDULQJRQWKLVFDVHLQ$SULOWKHRQO\SHUVRQDSSHDULQJDW
WULDOODWHUZKRKDGEHHQWKHUHZDVGHIHQGDQWEHFDXVHWKHMXGJHGHSXW\GLVWULFW
DWWRUQH\DQGFRXUWDSSRLQWHGOHJDODGYLVRUKDGHDFKEHHQUHSODFHGDQGQRQHKDG
WKDW$SULOH[SHULHQFHDSURGXFWRIGHIHQGDQW
VHIIRUWVWRLQIRUPWKHP
7KLVFDVHKDUPHGGHIHQGDQW :KHWKHUE\GLQWRUGRRPGHVLJQRUIDXOWDV
WKLVFDVHSURJUHVVHGGHIHQGDQW
VOLPLWHGUHVRXUFHVZHUHGUDLQHGDJDLQDQGDJDLQ
ZKHQWKH\QHHGQ
WKDYHEHHQDQGZRXOGQ
WKDYHEHHQZLWKWKHUHDVRQDEOH
PRGLILFDWLRQVWRSROLFLHVDQGSUDFWLFHVPDQGDWHGE\ODZ
,QDGGLWLRQWRSURFHGXUDOSROLFLHVDQGSUDFWLFHVZKLFKKDUPHGGHIHQGDQWDV
WKLVFDVHSURJUHVVHGGHIHQGDQWZDVKDUPHGZKHQGLVFULPLQDWHGDJDLQVWUHJDUGLQJ
GHIHQGDQW
VPHGLFDOKLVWRU\DQGUHFRUGV7KHUHLVDFRQIOLFWEHWZHHQWKHODZV
LGHQWLI\LQJDQGJXDUDQWHHLQJSURWHFWLRQWRDSHUVRQVXFKDVGHIHQGDQWDSHUVRQ
GLDJQRVHGZLWK&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPHDQHXURORJLFDOFRQGLWLRQVXEMHFWWR
HSLVRGLFGLVDEOLQJIODUHVUHTXLULQJHPHUJHQF\PHGLFDOWUHDWPHQWDQGWKHODZVDV
LQWHUSUHWHGE\WKH2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQWDQG0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\'LVWULFW
$WWRUQH\RSHUDWLQJDVWKRXJKDQ\UHFRUGVGRFXPHQWLQJWKDWSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQDQG
UHFRUGLQJDQ\VXFKSUHYLRXVHSLVRGHVDQGHPHUJHQF\WUHDWPHQWDUHQ
WLPSRUWDQWIRU
DQ\QXPEHURISUHWH[WVVXFKDVWKHHSLVRGHKDSSHQHGWRRORQJDJRRUWKHOLFHQVHG
PHGLFDOSURIHVVLRQDOLVQRWSUHVHQWLQFRXUWWRYHULI\VSHFLILFUHFRUGV
,QVWHDGGHIHQGDQWSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\ZDVH[SHFWHGDQGUHTXLUHGWR
SURGXFHPHGLFDOHYLGHQFHDQGLIDQGRQFHSURGXFHGWRYDOLGDWHUHFRUGVLQFOXGLQJ
EHLQJDEOHWRKDYHDSK\VLFLDQDYDLODEOHWRWHVWLI\LQFRXUWWKRVHUHFRUGVZHUHYDOLG
EXWDGGLWLRQDOO\WRKDYHWKHPHDQVWRKDYHKDGDSULRUDQGUHFHQWGLDJQRVLVE\D
SK\VLFLDQWKHGHIHQGDQWFDQSURGXFHDOLYHDQGLQFRXUW
(YHQWKRXJKGHIHQGDQWZDVDEOHWRVXESRHQDWKHPRVWUHFHQWQHXURORJLVWWR
GLDJQRVHGHIHQGDQWWKHFRXUWDOORZHGWKDWGHIHQVHZLWQHVVWRTXDVKWKDWVXESRHQD
DWDKHDULQJGHIHQGDQWKDGOHVVWKDQKRXUV¶QRWLFHRIDQGZKHUHGHIHQGDQW
DSSHDUHGDQGOHDUQHGWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHGOHJDODGYLVRUKDGQRWPDGHDUUDQJHPHQWV
ZKLOHLVVXLQJWKHVXESRHQDHLWKHUIRUWKHQHXURORJLVWWREHVXESRHQDHGDVDQH[SHUW
ZLWQHVVRUWREHSDLG
:KHQPHGLFDOUHFRUGVZHUHSURGXFHGE\GHIHQGDQWLQFOXGLQJUHFRUGVIURP
6RFLDO6HFXULW\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQDQG0XOWQRPDK&RXQW\+HDOWK'HSDUWPHQWILOHV
DQGWKHLUDXWKHQWLFLW\ZDVQ
WFKDOOHQJHGE\WKHVWDWHWKHVWDWHDUJXHGWKDW
GHIHQGDQW
VPHGLFDOFRQGLWLRQDQGVSHFLILFDOO\GHIHQGDQW
VGLVDELOLW\GLGQ
WPDWWHU
ZKLFKLWIROORZVPDGHWKHPHGLFDOFRQGLWLRQDQGUHFRUGVGRFXPHQWLQJWKH
PHGLFDOFRQGLWLRQQRWUHOHYDQW&OHDUO\VXFKDQDSSURDFKLVDJDLQVWLQWHUSUHWLQJ
256$DQGWKH$'$WRDIIRUGWKHEURDGHVWSRVVLEOHSURWHFWLRQVWRSHUVRQVZLWK
GLVDELOLWLHV
'HIHQGDQW
VH[SHULHQFHKDVEHHQRQHZKHUHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQZKLFKZRXOG
DOORZPHGLFDOGRFXPHQWDWLRQDVGHIHQGDQW
VHYLGHQFHSHUPLWWHGXQGHUWKH2UHJRQ
(YLGHQFH&RGHZDVGHQLHGDJDLQVWWKHJXDUDQWHHVWRSURWHFWSHUVRQVZLWK
GLVDELOLWLHVIURPXQODZIXOGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
7KHFDVHDURVHDIWHUGHIHQGDQWVRXJKWDQGUHFHLYHGHPHUJHQF\PHGLFDO
WUHDWPHQWDVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\WULJJHUHGDVFULPHYLFWLPDQGIROORZLQJ
WKDWWKHDFWRUVLQZKDWEHFDPHWKLVFDVHYLRODWHGGHIHQGDQW
VFLYLOULJKWVDVD
SHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\SULRUWRWKHDUUHVWDQGWKHQDJDLQZLWKWKHDUUHVWDQG\HW
DJDLQE\DQGWKURXJKWKHSURVHFXWLRQRIWKLVFULPLQDOFDVHQRZRQDSSHDO
256$FULWHULDTXDOLILHVDQLQGLYLGXDODVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\LI
WKDWLQGLYLGXDOKDVDUHFRUGRIKDYLQJDSK\VLFDORUPHQWDOLPSDLUPHQW:KHQ
DSSHDULQJLQFRXUWWKRVHGRFXPHQWVHVWDEOLVKDQGLQYRNHSURWHFWLRQVDQGVWDWXVDVD
SHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\EXWDUHDUJXHGDQGGHHPHGXQVXLWDEOHDVGHIHQVHHYLGHQFH
DVHLWKHURXWVLGHWKHERXQGVRIWKH2UHJRQ(YLGHQFH&RGHRUQRWUHOHYDQWEHFDXVH
WKH\GRQ
WUHODWHWRWKHWLPHIUDPHZKLFKKDVEHHQVHOHFWHGLQDSSURSULDWHO\
VWULSSLQJSURWHFWLRQVRISHUVRQVZLWKGLVDEOLQJFRQGLWLRQVZKLFKDUHHSLVRGLF
7KLVFDVHKDVQHYHUEHHQOHJDO )URPLWVLQFHSWLRQWKURXJKJHQHUDWLRQRI
GR]HQVRIYROXPHVRIWUDQVFULSWVWKLVFDVHKDVDGYHUVHO\LPSDFWHGGHIHQGDQWZLWKD
GLVDELOLW\EH\RQGWKHUHDOPRIVRFLHWDOWROHUDQFH)ROORZLQJDUUHVWGHIHQGDQW
V
HIIRUWVWRSURVHFXWHDGHIHQVHZHUHUHSHDWHGO\LOOHJDOO\KDPSHUHGDVUHSRUWHGWR
-XGJH%XVKRQJKHDULQJGHIHQGDQW
VPRWLRQWRGLVPLVVRURWKHUZLVHFRQWDLQHGLQ
ZKDWZDVUHFHLYHGDWWKDWKHDULQJDVGHIHQVHH[KLELWRUDVLGHQWLILHGLQ
$SSHOODQW
V2SHQLQJ%ULHIDQG([HUSWRI5HFRUGRUDSSDUHQWLQWKHUHFRUG
'HIHQGDQWZDVKHOGLQMDLOZLWKRXWDFFHVVWRDWHOHSKRQHDVGHIHQGDQW
UHSRUWHGDWILUVWDSSHDUDQFHEHIRUHWKHFRXUW'HIHQGDQWZDVKDPSHUHGE\PRQWKV
RILQFDUFHUDWLRQRQDIHORQ\FKDUJHWKHVWDWHNQHZLWFRXOGQRWSURVHFXWHDQGKHOG
LQFXVWRG\IRURYHUDQDGGLWLRQDOPRQWKSULRUWRGHIHQGDQWEHLQJUHOHDVHGIURPMDLO
RQWKDWFKDUJHDIWHUWKHVWDWHDQGGHIHQGDQWNQHZWKHIHORQ\FKDUJHZRXOGKDYHWR
EHGLVPLVVHGGHIHQGDQW
VFRQWDFWVLQWKHFRPPXQLW\GHIHQGDQWSURYLGHGZHUHQ
W
FRQWDFWHGDVSDUWRIWKHUHOHDVHIURPFXVWRG\LQYHVWLJDWLRQUHFRPPHQGLQJGHQLDO
EHFDXVHGHIHQGDQWODFNHGUHODWLRQVKLSVLQWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQZDV
RQO\FRQGXFWHGDIWHUH[WUDRUGLQDULO\GHOD\GHIHQGDQWVXIIHUHGWKHORVVRIDQG
VXIIHUHGVLFNHQLQJHPRWLRQDOLPSDFWDULVLQJIURPWKHGHVWUXFWLRQRIGHIHQGDQW
V
SHUVRQDOJRRGVHVVHQWLDOWRGHIHQGDQW
VZHOOEHLQJZKLFKZHUHVHL]HGDWDUUHVWDQG
GHVWUR\HG)HEUXDU\ZKLOHGHIHQGDQWZDVLQFXVWRG\DVWKLVFDVHZDV
SHQGLQJ)HEUXDU\MDLOVWDIIUHIXVHGWRDFFHSWDFDVKLHU
VFKHFNIRU
GHIHQGDQW
VEDLOZKLOHGHIHQGDQWZDVLQFXVWRG\RQWKLVFDVHGHIHQGDQW
VOHJDOPDLO
IURPFXVWRG\ZDVQ
WGHOLYHUHGMDLOVWDIIUHIXVHGGHIHQVHDWWRUQH\FRQWDFWWKURXJK
HLWKHUYLVLWVRUWHOHSKRQHFDOOVDQGWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHGGHIHQVHDWWRUQH\V
DFTXLHVFHGGHIHQGDQWUHFHLYHGQRPHGLFDOWUHDWPHQWIRU&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPHLQ
FXVWRG\ZKLFKVLFNHQHGGHIHQGDQWDQGFRXUWDSSRLQWHGFRXQVHOIDLOHGWRREWDLQ
GHIHQGDQW
VUHTXHVWHGGHIHQVHHYLGHQFH
$IWHUWKDWWKHVWDWHLQWHUIHUHGZLWKDQGGHQLHGGHIHQGDQW
VGHIHQVHVWRWKH
FKDUJHVRUGLQDULO\DYDLODEOHWRDQ\GHIHQGDQWDVLGHQWLILHGLQ$SSHOODQW
V2SHQLQJ
%ULHI ,QVSLWHRIDOORIWKRVHDVVDXOWVRQGHIHQGDQW
VSURWHFWHGLQWHUHVWVDQG
DELOLWLHVGHIHQGDQWZLOOQHWDUHYHUVDORIWKHWULDOFRXUW
VFRQYLFWLRQRQDSSHDODVD
SURGXFWRIGHIHQGDQW
VSURVHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQDWWULDODQG$SSHOODQW
V2SHQLQJ%ULHI
SUHSDUHGE\WKH2UHJRQ2IILFHRI3XEOLF'HIHQVH6HUYLFHV
7KHWULDOFRXUW
VFRQYLFWLRQPXVWEHUHYHUVHGDVUHTXLUHGXQGHUWKHFRXUW
V
RZQUXOHVDQGREOLJDWLRQV 0RUHLPSRUWDQWWRGHIHQGDQWLVWKHUHFRJQLWLRQWKDWRXU
VWDWHFDQQRWHQJDJHWKHFRXUWSURFHVVHVDVLWKDVGRQHEHFDXVHRIWKHDGYHUVHDQG
KDUPIXOLPSDFWRQGHIHQGDQWDVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\EHFDXVHLWLVDJDLQVWWKH
GHFODUHGSXEOLFSROLF\RIWKHVWDWHDQGEHFDXVHLWLVDQRQJRLQJYLRODWLRQRIWKH
$'$ 7KLVFDVHVKRXOGQRWEHUHYHUVHGEXWVKRXOGEHYDFDWHG
'HIHQGDQW
VPHGLFDOUHFRUGVDQGKLVWRU\DUHDVSHFLILFHOHPHQWRIWKHVWDWXWH
GHWHUPLQLQJGHIHQGDQW
VVWDWXVDVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\256$E
7KHFRXUWSURFHVVLQVWHDGWXUQHGWKHPLQWRDEXUGHQE\LPSRVLQJLPSRVVLEOH
FRQGLWLRQVRQWKHLQGLJHQWGHIHQGDQWZLWKDGLVDELOLW\ZKRKDVDOZD\VVDLGKHZDV
REH\LQJWKHODZDQGVKRXOGQHYHUKDYHEHFRPHDGHIHQGDQW
7KHFRXUWSODFHGWKHEXUGHQRQSURVHGHIHQGDQWZLWKDGLVDELOLW\WR
VXESRHQDUHFRUGVDVWKHSURVHGHIHQGDQWSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\FRQWLQXHGWR
UHSRUWWRWKHFRXUWWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHGOHJDODGYLVRUVZRXOGQRWIROORZXSWRREWDLQ
GHIHQGDQW
VHYLGHQFHHYHQDIWHUEHLQJDSSRLQWHGE\WRFRXUWWRDVVLVWGHIHQGDQWDVD
SHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\VSHFLILFDOO\WRREWDLQHYLGHQFH7KHFRXUWSHUPLWWHGWKH
GHUHOLFWLRQRIWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHGGHIHQVHFRXQVHOLQFOHDUYLRODWLRQRIGHIHQGDQW
V
ULJKWWRDVVLVWDQFHRIFRXQVHODQGWKHGXW\LPSRVHGRQWKRVHFRXUWDSSRLQWHG
GHIHQVHDWWRUQH\VZKLFKERWKIDLOHGWRDFWDQGGLGVRZLWKWKHNQRZOHGJHRIWKH
FRXUW
2Q)HEUXDU\GHIHQGDQWUHSRUWHGWRWKHFRXUWWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHG
GHIHQVHFRXQVHOGLGQ
WFRPPXQLFDWHZLWKGHIHQGDQWUHJDUGLQJWKH1RYHPEHU
HYHQWVDQGGLGQ
WDFWWRZDUGGHIHQGDQW
VLQWHUHVWVDQGGHIHQGDQWZDVFKRRVLQJWR
SURFHHGSURVH)ROORZLQJDQH[SHULHQFHLQZKHQ3RUWODQG3ROLFHUHIXVHGWR
DFFHSWGHIHQVHZLWQHVVVXESRHQDVGHIHQGDQWQHHGHGDVVLVWDQFHDQGZDVSURYLGHGD
OHJDODGYLVRUWRREWDLQGHIHQVHHYLGHQFHEH\RQGGHIHQGDQW
VDELOLW\WRREWDLQLQD
IRUPDWDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHFRXUWDVHYLGHQFH $VVSHFLILHGRQWKHUHFRUGEHIRUH
-XGJH0DUVKDOOWKHGHIHQVHHYLGHQFHZDVVRXJKWSULRUWRWKHOHJDODGYLVRUEHLQJ
DSSRLQWHGWRDVVLVWGHIHQGDQW'HIHQGDQWZDLYHGULJKWWRFRXQVHODQGDSSHDUHGSUR
VHZLWKWKDWJXDUDQWHH7U
7+('()(1'$17 ZKLFKZRXOGEHWKHFDOOVZKLFKZRXOG
EHP\PHGLFDOUHFRUGVZKLFKZRXOGEHJHWWLQJP\H[SHUWZLWQHVV
P\QHXURORJLVWJHWWLQJWKH(PDQXHO+RVSLWDOHPHUJHQF\URRPGRFWRU
7+(&2857 2ND\
%\WKHWLPHRIWKHWULDORYHUVL[PRQWKVODWHUGHIHQVHHYLGHQFHZDVQRW
REWDLQHGE\DQ\RIWKHFRXUWDSSRLQWHGDWWRUQH\VZKRUHSUHVHQWHGGHIHQGDQW
PHDQLQJGHIHQGDQWGLGDOORIWKHZRUNLGHQWLI\LQJDQGUHTXHVWLQJHYLGHQFH\HW
UHDSHGQRQHRIWKHUHZDUGGXHWRWKHIDLOXUHRURXWULJKWUHIXVDORIWKH
FRXUWDSSRLQWHGFRXQVHOWRDFWWRVHFXUHGHIHQGDQW
VHYLGHQFH
6WDWXWRU\DQGDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUXOHVSURWHFWGHIHQGDQW
VFLYLOULJKWVEXWWKH
2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQWFRQWLQXHVWRYLRODWHWKDWGHFODUHGSXEOLFSROLF\DQG
HQJDJHGLQXQODZIXOGLVDELOLW\GLVFULPLQDWLRQZKHWKHULQWHQWLRQDOO\RUQRW
&RQJUHVVFRXOGQRWKDYHLQWHQGHGWROLPLWWKH>$'$
V@SURWHFWLRQVDQG
SURKLELWLRQVWRFLUFXPVWDQFHVLQYROYLQJGHOLEHUDWHGLVFULPLQDWLRQ 5DWKHUWKH
$'$DWWHPSWVWRHOLPLQDWHWKHHIIHFWVRIEHQLJQQHJOHFWDSDWK\DQG
LQGLIIHUHQFHLQWHUQDOTXRWDWLRQVRPLWWHGDVLQ&URZGHUY.LWDJDZD)G
WK&LU'LVFULPLQDWLRQWKHRULHVDUHVHWRXWLQ2$5
$GYHUVHLPSDFWLVGLVDELOLW\GLVFULPLQDWLRQHYHQZKHQXQLQWHQWLRQDO2$5
'HIHQGDQWFKDOOHQJHVWKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQW
WKHVWDWHJRYHUQPHQWLVSURKLELWHGWRDVVLVWLQXQODZIXOGLVDELOLW\GLVFULPLQDWLRQ
ZKLFKFDQEHXQODZIXOHYHQZKHQIDFLDOO\QHXWUDOLILWKDVDQDGYHUVHLPSDFWRQ
SHUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHV
7KHFRXUWDOVRFUHDWHGDKRVWLOHHQYLURQPHQW $Q\UHDVRQDEOHSHUVRQLQWKH
VLWXDWLRQ GHIHQGDQW IDFHG ZRXOG ILQG WKH HQYLURQPHQW KRVWLOH LQWLPLGDWLQJ DQG
KDUDVVPHQW LV VXIILFLHQWO\ VHYHUH RU SHUYDVLYH WR FUHDWH D KRVWLOH LQWLPLGDWLQJ RU
RIIHQVLYHHQYLURQPHQWLVZKHWKHUDUHDVRQDEOHSHUVRQLQWKHFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKH
LQGLYLGXDO DJDLQVW ZKRP WKH KDUDVVPHQW LV GLUHFWHG ZRXOG VR SHUFHLYH LW 7KH
GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DV WKH FDVH ZDV SURVHFXWHG DQG GLG VR ZKHQ WKH FRXUW ODFNHG
MXULVGLFWLRQWKURXJKWKHRSHUDWLRQRI256$
-XULVGLFWLRQPD\EHUDLVHGDWDQ\WLPH7KHTXHVWLRQSUHVHQWHGLVZKHWKHUWKH
2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQWFDQH[HUFLVHMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUWKLVFDVHZKHQWKHVWDWH
LVSURKLELWHGIURPDVVLVWLQJDSODFHRISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQHQJDJHGLQWKH
XQODZIXOSUDFWLFHVRIGLVDELOLW\GLVFULPLQDWLRQDQG$'$UHWDOLDWLRQ
2UHJRQ
VSXEOLFSROLF\UHJDUGLQJSHUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVDVGHFODUHGLQ256
$JXDUDQWHHVSHUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVWKHULJKWWRXVHDQGHQMR\SODFHV
RISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQ256$EGHILQHVSXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQ
WRLQFOXGHSODFHVRSHUDWHGE\SXELFERGLHVDQGFLQFOXGHVVHUYLFHVRIIHUHGE\
SXEOLFERGLHV
'HIHQGDQW
VGLDJQRVLVRIKDYLQJ&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPHLVRQHZD\
GHIHQGDQWLVSURWHFWHGDVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\XQGHU256&KDSWHU$DQG
SDUDOOHOODQJXDJHZLWKLQ2UHJRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLYH5XOHV&KDSUWHU 7KRVH
GHILQLWLRQVLQFOXGHDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\ZKRKDVWKHTXDOLI\LQJFRQGLWLRQ
256$DRUIRUKDYLQJDUHFRUGRUKLVWRU\RIWKHTXDOLI\LQJ
FRQGLWLRQ256$E
'HIHQGDQWZDVGLDJQRVHGDVKDYLQJ&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPHRQERWK
1RYHPEHUDQG1RYHPEHU7KHWULDOFRXUWUHIXVHGWRDOORZWKH
(PHUJHQF\'HSDUWPHQWUHFRUGVDVGHIHQVHH[KLELWV1HYHUWKHOHVVGHIHQGDQWZDV
GLDJQRVHGDVDSHUVRQZLWK&HQWUDO3DLQ6\QGURPHDWWKRVHWZR(PHUJHQF\
'HSDUWPHQWYLVLWVZKHUHGHIHQGDQWZDVDGPLWWHGDQGGLDJQRVHGZKLFKWKHFRXUW
DQGSURVHFXWRUNQHZSULRUWRWKDWDUJXPHQWDQGUXOLQJ ,QDGGLWLRQGHIHQGDQW
V
GRFXPHQWVDQGFROORTX\LQIRUPHGWKHFRXUWDQGSURVHFXWRUGHIHQGDQWVXUYLYHGD
HSLVRGHUHTXLULQJHPHUJHQF\PHGLFDOFDUHIRUIRUW\ILYHPLQXWHVWRSUHYHQW
FLUFXODWRU\IDLOXUH
7KHVWDWHDQGLWVFRXUWLVSURKLELWHGIURPDVVLVWLQJRUDFWLQJRQEHKDOIRI
WKHSODFHRISXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQZKLFKYLRODWHGGHIHQGDQW
VULJKWVDVDSHUVRQ
ZLWKDGLVDELOLW\ZKHWKHUWKDWEHDJRYHUQPHQWEXLOGLQJRUVHUYLFHRUDKRVSLWDORU
DVHFXULW\JXDUGRUDSROLFHRIILFHU
7KHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH2UHJRQ-XGLFLDO'HSDUWPHQWLVOLPLWHGE\256
$,WFDQQRWDFWLILWVDFWLRQVDOWHULWVVWDWXVWREHDSHUVRQDFWLQJRQ
EHKDOIRIWKHSODFHRISXELFDFFRPPRGDWLRQHQJDJHGLQXQODZIXOGLVDELOLW\
GLVFULPLQDWLRQ256$,WLVDQXQODZIXOSUDFWLFHIRUDQ\SODFHRI
SXEOLFDFFRPPRGDWLRQUHVRUWRUDPXVHPHQWDVGHILQHGLQ256$RUDQ\
SHUVRQDFWLQJRQEHKDOIRIVXFKSODFHWRPDNHDQ\GLVWLQFWLRQGLVFULPLQDWLRQRU
UHVWULFWLRQEHFDXVHDFXVWRPHURUSDWURQLVDQLQGLYLGXDOZLWKDGLVDELOLW\
7KHUHLVQRHYLGHQFHLQWKHUHFRUGWKDWSULRUWRDUUHVWLQJGHIHQGDQWWKHSXEOLF
DFFRPPRGDWLRQPDGHDQ\HIIRUWWRHQJDJHLQWKHUHTXLUHGPHDQLQJIXOLQWHUDFWLYH
SURFHVVWULJJHUHGE\WKHGLVFRYHU\GHIHQGDQWZDVDSHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\)DLOXUH
WRHQJDJHLQWKDWLQWHUDFWLYHSURFHVVLVXQODZIXOGLVDELOLW\GLVFULPLQDWLRQEHFDXVH
QRUHTXLUHGUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQRUPRGLILFDWLRQRIDGPLQLVWUDWLYHSROLFLHV
RUSUDFWLFHVRUDOWHUQDWLYHO\HVWDEOLVKLQJQRUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQLVDYDLODEOH
FDQEHGHWHUPLQHGZLWKRXWPHDQLQJIXOLQTXLU\7KHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIZKDW
FRQVWLWXWHVUHDVRQDEOHPRGLILFDWLRQLVKLJKO\IDFWVSHFLILFUHTXLULQJFDVHE\FDVH
LQTXLU\See&URZGHUY.LWDJDZD)GWK&LU
,QVWHDGGHIHQGDQWHQGXUHGDUUHVWLQFDUFHUDWLRQDQGGR]HQVRIFRXUW
DSSHDUDQFHVIDFLQJWKHHPRWLRQDOGDPDJHRIRQJRLQJWKUHDWRIDQDUUHVWZDUUDQW
EHLQJLVVXHGIRUPLVVLQJDFRXUWDSSHDUDQFHHYHQRQWKHRFFDVLRQGHIHQGDQWLVD
FULPHYLFWLPRQWKHZD\WRFRXUWDVRFFXUUHGRQ1RYHPEHUDQGZKLFK
UHVXOWHGLQ-XGJH7RGGLVVXLQJDZDUUDQWIRUGHIHQGDQW7U
(DFKRIWKRVHGR]HQVRIPDQGDWRU\FRXUWDSSHDUDQFHVUHTXLUHGGHIHQGDQWWR
OHDYHKRPHWUDYHOWRDQGHQWHUWKHFRXUWKRXVHDQGDSSHDULQFRXUWZKHUHDQG
ZKHQWKHVWDWHUHTXLUHGLQFOXGLQJWZRSODFHVDWWKHVDPHWLPHDVRQ0DUFK
ZKHQGHIHQGDQWZDVRQWKHGRFNHWEHIRUH-XGJH0DXUHULQRQHFRXUWURRP
7UDQVFUSW9ROXPHRIDQG-XGJH.DQWRULQDGLIIHUHQWFRXUWURRP7UDQVFULSW
9ROXPHDQGRI
'HIHQGDQWZDVDUUHVWHGZLWKLQDZHHNDIWHUDQHSLVRGLFZRUVHQLQJRI
GHIHQGDQW
VQHXURORJLFDOFRQGLWLRQZDVWULJJHUHGDIWHUEHLQJDFULPHYLFWLPDV
SHUVRQZLWKDGLVDELOLW\ 'HIHQGDQWKDGEHHQDGPLWWHGDWWKH(PDQXHO+RVSLWDO
(PHUJHQF\'HSDUWPHQWWZLFHGD\VSULRUWREHLQJDUUHVWHG
&(57,),&$7(2)&203/,$1&(:,7+25$3
%ULHIOHQJWK
,FHUWLI\WKDW,GRQRWKDYHWKHDELOLW\WRSURYLGHDZRUGFRXQWEHFDXVHWKHEULHI
ZDVSUHSDUHGpro seWKLVEULHIFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHSDJHOLPLWDWLRQLQ25$3
DQGWKHQXPEHURISDJHVLQWKLVEULHILVSDJHV
7\SHVL]H
,FHUWLI\WKDWWKHVL]HRIWKHW\SHLQWKLVEULHIFRXOGQRWEHGHWHUPLQHGEHFDXVHWKHEULHI
ZDVSUHSDUHGpro se
127,&(2)),/,1*$1'3522)2)6(59,&(
,FHUWLI\WKDW,GLUHFWHGWKHRULJLQDO$SSHOODQW
V3UR6H6XSSOHPHQWDO%ULHIWREH
ILOHGZLWKWKH$SSHOODWH&RXUW$GPLQLVWUDWRU$SSHOODWH&RXUWV5HFRUGV6HFWLRQ
6WDWH6WUHHW6DOHP2UHJRQRQ$SULO
,IXUWKHUFHUWLI\WKDWXSRQUHFHLSWRIWKHFRQILUPDWLRQHPDLOVWDWLQJWKDWWKH
GRFXPHQWKDVEHHQDFFHSWHGE\WKHH)LOLQJV\VWHPWKLV$SSHOODQW
V3UR6H
6XSSOHPHQWDO%ULHIZLOOEHH6HUYHGSXUVXDQWWR25$3UHJDUGLQJHOHFWURQLF
VHYLFHRQUHJLVWHUHGH)LOHUVRQ%HQMDPLQ*XWPDQ6ROLFLWRU*HQHUDO
DWWRUQH\IRU3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW
5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG
(51(67*/$11(7
&+,()'()(1'(5
&5,0,1$/$33(//$7(6(&7,21
2)),&(2)38%/,&'()(16(6(59,&(6
(6LJQHG
Signed
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
By Brett Allin at 9:38 am, Apr 16, 2018
%5(77-$//,126%
'(387<38%/,&'()(1'(5
%UHWW-$OOLQ#RSGVVWDWHRUXV
$WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
%DUU\-RH6WXOO
2IILFHRI3XEOLF'HIHQVH6HUYLFHV$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQ
&RXUW6W1(6DOHP2UHJRQ
7HOHSKRQH)D[
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
v. CA A16415
Defendant-Appellant.
6713 01/18
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Jurisdiction .....................................................................................................1
The trial court erred in precluding defendant from arguing that the
trespass and exclusion orders were unlawful.
II. The trial court erred in excluding relevant evidence that supported
defendant’s arguments that the exclusion and trespass orders were
unlawful. ...................................................................................................15
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Cler v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon,
349 Or 481, 245 P3d 642 (2010) .....................................................................11
J. D. v. S. K.,
282 Or App 243, 385 P3d 1161 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 439 (2017) .............11
State v. Barajas,
247 Or App 247, 268 P3d 732 (2011) .............................................................17
State v. Davis,
336 Or 19, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) .......................................................................17
State v. Fletcher,
263 Or App 630, 330 P3d 659, 661 (2014) .............................................. 12, 13
iii
State v. Goodin,
8 Or App 15, 492 P2d 287 (1971) ...................................................................12
State v. Gray,
286 Or App 799, 401 P3d 1241 (2017) ...........................................................11
State v. Hooper,
256 Or App 237, 300 P3d 235, rev den, 354 Or 61 (2013).............................12
State v. Koenig,
238 Or App 297, 242 P3d 649 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 601 (2011) ...............13
State v. Lovins,
177 Or App 534, 33 P3d 1060 (2001) .............................................................17
State v. Marbet,
32 Or App 67, 573 P2d 736 (1978) .............................................. 10, 13, 16, 18
State v. Ratliff,
304 Or 254, 744 P2d 2470 (1987) ...................................................................14
State v. Riddell,
172 Or App 675, 21 P3d 128 (2001) ....................................................... 13, 14
State v. White,
211 Or App 210, 154 P3d 124, as clarified on recons, 213 Or App 584, rev
den, 343 Or 224 (2007) ...................................................................................18
OEC 401..............................................................................................................15
OEC 402..............................................................................................................15
Other Authorities
ORAP 5.45 ............................................................................................................7
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
trespass in the second degree, ORS 164.245, based on the trial courts limitations
of his arguments challenging the lawfulness of the trespass order and its
Jurisdiction
Notice of Appeal
Questions Presented
state to prove that an order to leave was lawful, is the defendant entitled to
argue to the jury that the trespass order is unlawful because it violated Oregon
Summary of Argument
defendant used the bathroom and then began walking down a hospital corridor,
away from the nearest hospital exit. A hospital security guard ordered
defendant to leave through a particular door, and defendant did not comply.
At trial, defendant sought to argue that the 2011 exclusion order and the
2015 trespass order based on it were unlawful because they violated public-
accommodation and disability laws. The trial court barred defendant from
arguing the lawfulness of the order to the jury and excluded as irrelevant
3
arguing that the state failed to prove an essential element a charge. An essential
element of second-degree trespass is that the order for defendant to leave must
be lawful. This court has held that a trial court errs in barring a defendant from
trespass charge.
Likewise in this case, it was error for the court to prohibit defendant from
arguing to the jury that the order was unlawful. It was also error to exclude
evidence that tended to show that the exclusion and trespass orders violated
Oregon and federal statute. Those errors harmed defendant, so his case must be
Summary of Facts
State’s evidence
the premises may result in your arrest for criminal trespass in the
second degree.”
Tr 449-50; Ex 1, ER-4.
hospital “or he would die.” Tr 564. He became verbally aggressive and said
that he had Central Pain Syndrome. Tr 564. Defendant tried to get into the
restrained him and sedated him with two drugs. Tr 569-70. They delivered
received a call that defendant was subject to an exclusion order and that he had
just been discharged from the emergency room. Tr 470-71, 484. Davies went
to the emergency room, where hospital staff told him that defendant was in the
bathroom. Tr 472. Davies saw defendant leave the bathroom, turn away from
the nearest hospital exit, and walk further into the hospital. Tr 472. There are
other hospital exits in the direction that defendant walked. Tr 473, 476. Davies
the exclusion order. Tr 479. Defendant replied, “Nope, I am not stopping,” and
5
turned around and began walking back towards the emergency room. Tr 480.
Defendant sat down in the emergency room lobby and said that he refused to
leave. Tr 480. He yelled and waved his arms. Tr 480. Davies handcuffed him
and tried to escort him out, but defendant went limp. Tr 483-84.
Portland Police Office Jena Lemke responded to the hospital, where she
room and the children’s hospital. Tr 514. She walked defendant to her patrol
car and took him to jail. Tr 515. She did not notice any health issues with
defendant. Tr 518-19.
Defense evidence
Two days before his arrest, defendant went to the emergency room at
received treatment from the attending physician. Tr 638. Once his heart rate
worsened. Tr 641.
6
worsened. Tr 641, 648. After being sedated, he passed out and awoke in a
the room, used the bathroom near the waiting room, and then walked towards
the hospital exit that was nearest to the bus stops. Tr 652. It was cold out and
he was wearing shorts. Tr 653. As he was walking towards the exit, someone
approached him from behind and gave him a trespass warning. Tr 654.
Security guards tried to usher him out through a fire exit, but defendant wanted
to take a different exit. Tr 657. When they arrested him, he sat down and
waited for the police. Tr 658. The police escorted him from the hospital. Tr
659.
The trial court erred in precluding defendant from arguing that the
state’s witnesses about the 2011 incident that led to the exclusion order.
1
Defendant refers to the 2011 order barring defendant from the
hospital except for emergency medical treatment as the “exclusion order.” He
refers to the order to leave issued on the date of arrest as the “trespass order.”
7
At several points before and during trial, defendant3 asserted that he was
not guilty because the exclusion order was unlawful based on his status as a
person with a disability. See, e.g., Tr 124-25, 246-55, 292-93, 317-22. For
example, defendant discussed that defense with the court at a pretrial hearing on
September 6, 2016:
2
Defendant combines the preservation of error, standard of review,
and argument for his first through third assignments of error, because they
present essentially the same legal issue. ORAP 5.45 (6).
3
Defendant represented himself at trial with the assistance of
advisory counsel. Unless otherwise noted, defendant personally raised the
issues identified in this section.
8
Tr 293.
whether the order to leave was lawful.” Tr 328. The trial court ruled that
defendant would not be allowed to argue about the lawfulness of the exclusion
order:
“* * * * *
Tr 352-53. Consistent with that ruling, the court also “disallow[ed] any
Hospital prior to November 20[, 2015,]” including the incident that gave rise to
order against defendant in 2011, defendant asked him about the circumstances
that gave rise to the exclusion order. Tr 454. The state objected, and the trial
court again ruled that defendant could not discuss the factual basis for the order:
Tr 457.
After the state rested, defendant sought to admit his medical records:
marked as Exhibits 105 and 106. Tr 601-03. Defendant argued that those
exhibits were relevant to his argument that the trespass order was unlawful. Tr
604-19.
The court reiterated its earlier ruling that defendant could not challenge
the lawfulness of the exclusion order, and it further held that defendant would
not be allowed to introduce evidence to support his arguments that the order
was unlawful:
* * constitutional rights were violated and that you were not being
accommodated under 690. * * *
“* * * * *
Tr 624-25, 629.
349 Or 481, 487, 245 P3d 642 (2010). It reviews the court’s exercise of control
App 243, 244, 385 P3d 1161 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 439 (2017). Relevance
determinations are reviewed for errors of law. State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799,
Combined Argument
“Absent abuse, the control of closing arguments is left to the trial court
judge, who has broad authority to control the conduct of the trial.” State v.
Goodin, 8 Or App 15, 23-24, 492 P2d 287 (1971). For example, a “trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it prevented a defendant, in closing argument
to the jury, from rehashing an immaterial, pretrial argument about venue, based
on the convenience of witnesses.” State v. Fletcher, 263 Or App 630, 634, 330
P3d 659, 661 (2014) (citing State v. Hooper, 256 Or App 237, 240, 300 P3d
closing argument to prevent him from arguing that the state had failed to prove
example, the trial court in Fletcher ruled that “defendant could not contend, in
closing argument, that the state must prove, but had not, that defendant intended
or knew that he used a dangerous weapon.” Id. at 631. On appeal, this court
understanding of the law, and consequently, the trial court had abused its
commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters
leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so
state must prove as an element of the offense that the direction for the defendant
to leave the premises was lawful. State v. Koenig, 238 Or App 297, 308, 242
73, 573 P2d 736 (1978). For example, in Koenig, this court reversed the denial
its holding that the trespass order ran afoul of the defendant’s constitutional
The trial court here ruled that defendant needed to challenge the 2011
exclusion order in a civil proceeding and that he could not challenge it in this
criminal proceeding. But this court has held such a ruling to be legal error. In
State v. Riddell, this court held that the trial court erred in barring a defendant
172 Or App 675, 687, 21 P3d 128 (2001). It reasoned that, even though there
was an administrative process to appeal the exclusion order that the defendant
did not take advantage of, that process was “not as ‘formal and comprehensive’
(quoting State v. Ratliff, 304 Or 254, 259-60, 744 P2d 2470 (1987)). Thus, the
Likewise here, the trial court erred by barring defendant from collaterally
order here, like the one in Riddell, did not provide a sufficient procedural
mechanism to appeal the exclusion order). Thus, defendant should not have
been barred from collaterally challenging it and any trespass order based on it.
essential element of the charge. The court further erred in excluding evidence
II. The trial court erred in excluding relevant evidence that supported
defendant’s arguments that the exclusion and trespass orders were
unlawful.
less probable than it would be without the evidence.” OEC 401. All relevant
element of trespass in the second degree. One way to show that a trespass order
was unlawful is to show that the exclusion order that authorized it was
unlawful. Thus, the lawfulness of both orders was a material issue, and
purpose and that they were unlawful. To do that, he needed to present evidence
about the circumstances surrounding the 2011 incident, which would tend to
show the reasons for the exclusion order. Thus, that evidence was relevant to
records reinforced defendant’s testimony about his diagnosis with Central Pain
Disabilities Act (ADA). Tr 293. Those provisions suggest that a trespass order
unless certain showings are made.); ORS 659A.142 (“It is an unlawful practice
a disability.”).
Thus, evidence about whether defendant had a disability and whether the
Or App at 73 (“If the manager [of a restaurant] had authority to direct the patron
discrimination statute may have been violated by the order to leave is a proper
inquiry in a criminal trespass trial.”). The trial court erred in barring evidence
17
about the 2011 incident and defendant’s medical records supporting and
itself [i]s affected * * * because the court denied one of its required elements.”
State v. Lovins, 177 Or App 534, 538, 33 P3d 1060 (2001). In such cases, this
argument, that principle applies with equal force here. The only element that
(defendant stating that he was not challenging the authority of the person who
gave the order and was only challenging “the lawfulness of the order to leave”).
Thus, for practical purposes, the prohibition on argument about that element
requires reversal.
should reverse. This court “must affirm a judgment, despite any error
committed at trial, if, after considering all the matters submitted, the court is of
the opinion that the judgment ‘was such as should have been rendered in the
case.’” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 28, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (quoting Or Const
18
Art VII (Amended), § 3). Ordinarily, whether the court must affirm despite
error depends upon “a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular
Here, defendant contended that the exclusion order was unlawful because
colorable basis for the jury to find that the exclusion order was unlawful.4
examination of witnesses about the lawfulness of the order compound the harm.
Without the errors, defendant would have been able to present evidence
regarding whether the orders were unlawful, and he would have been able to
cite that evidence in his arguments to the jury. That was defendant’s sole
defense to the charge, and the court’s errors completely deprived defendant of
that defense. There is more than “little likelihood” that the errors affected the
4
Although defendant’s argument involved a legal issue, it was
ultimately “for the jury to decide the factual predicates underlying the elements
of a crime.” State v. White, 211 Or App 210, 217, 154 P3d 124, as clarified on
recons, 213 Or App 584, rev den, 343 Or 224 (2007) (holding that it was for the
jury to decide whether facts established that order was lawful).
19
CONCLUSION
For those reasons, defendant respectfully asks this court to reverse the
Respectfully submitted,
ERNEST G. LANNET
CHIEF DEFENDER
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SECTION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
ESigned
Signed
________________________________
By Brett J Allin at 2:30 pm, Jan 02, 2018
Information .................................................................................................ER1
6WDWH
V([KLELW............................................................................................... ER-
-XGJPHQW............................................................................................. ER-
Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu Search Criminal, Traffic and Parking Case
Location : Multnomah Images Help
Records Refine Search Back
REGISTER OF ACTIONS
CASE NO. 15CR52961
Related Cases
15CR53749 (Related - Same Defendant)
PARTY INFORMATION
Attorneys
Defendant Stull, Barry Joe Also Known Male White Pro SeBRYAN
As Stully, Barry Joe DOB: 1958 FRANCESCONI
6' 2", 260 lbs Court Appointed
503 225-9100(W)
KASIA E RUTLEDGE
Court Appointed
503 225-9100(W)
Kevin Kelley
Court Appointed
503 648-0707(W)
Eamon P McMahon
503 988-3162(W)
MICHAEL BOTTHOF
503 988-3162(W)
SEAN M MAZOROL
503 988-3162(W)
TODD T JACKSON
503 988-3162(W)
CHARGE INFORMATION
https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2546... 3/22/2017
Page 2 of 5
ER-5
DISPOSITIONS
12/03/2015 Plea (Judicial Officer: Greenlick, Michael A)
1. Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree
Not Guilty
Created: 12/03/2015 9:53 AM
https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2546... 3/22/2017
Page 3 of 5
ER-6
https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2546... 3/22/2017
Page 4 of 5
ER-7
https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2546... 3/22/2017
Page 5 of 5
ER-8
https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=2546... 3/22/2017
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORAP 5.05
Brief length
I certify that this brief complies with the word-count limitation in ORAP 5.05, which
word-count is 4,041 words.
Type size
I certify that the size of the type in this brief is not smaller than 14 point for both the
text of the brief and footnotes.
I certify that I directed the original Appellant's Opening Brief to be filed with
the Appellate Court Administrator, Appellate Courts Records Section, 1163 State
Street, Salem, Oregon 97301, on January 2, 2018.
I further certify that, upon receipt of the confirmation email stating that the
document has been accepted by the eFiling system, this Appellant's Opening Brief
will be eServed pursuant to ORAP 16.45 (regarding electronic service on registered
eFilers) on Benjamin Gutman #160599, Solicitor General, attorney for Plaintiff-
Respondent.
Respectfully submitted,
ERNEST G. LANNET
CHIEF DEFENDER
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SECTION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
ESigned
Signed
________________________________
By Brett J Allin at 2:30 pm, Jan 02, 2018
BRETT J. ALLIN OSB #142719
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
Brett.J.Allin@opds.state.or.us