|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Ricardo Serrano|
|Supreme Court Case 3|
|Meredith Allen on behalf of Ricardo Serrano|
Timothy Sylwester, Andrew Morgan Lavin, and Susan G. Howe on behalf of the State of Oregon
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Ricardo Serrano (S058390) (on automatic direct review of the judgment of conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Washington County Circuit Court).|
This case comes before the Oregon Supreme Court on automatic and direct review of a judgment of conviction and sentence of death following defendant's convictions for ten counts of aggravated murder involving three victims.
Defendant raises 30 assignments of error. Defendant has indicated seven assignments of error on which he plans to focus oral argument. Those assignments of error present the following questions:
(1) Did the trial court err by denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the three counts of aggravated felony murder?
(2) Did the trial court erred by instructing the jury that “in the furtherance of the crime of burglary means during the effort to commit the burglary?”
(3) Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that “the causing of death must have occurred during the effort to commit the burglary * * * or during the immediate flight from the burglary?”
(4) Did the trial court err when it allowed a policy officer to testify that she had released certain exhibits to defendant?
(5) Did the trial court err when it curtailed defense counsel’s closing argument that there was “no evidence that defendant knew about [his wife’s] pregnancy and that he was not the father of the baby?”
(6) Did the trial court err by failing to, sua sponte, declare a mistrial after the jury heard testimony that Hispanic gangs have a hierarchy that includes roles designated as “soldiers” and “shock collars?”
(7) Did the trial court err by failing to, sua sponte, strike testimony that Hispanic gangs a hierarchy that includes roles designated as “soldiers” and “shock collars?”
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: