|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Tawanna D. Fuller|
|Supreme Court Case 3|
|Jeremy Rice on behalf of State of Oregon|
Karen J. Mockrin on behalf of Tawanna D. Fuller
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Tawanna D. Fuller (S060808) (A147724) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 252 Or App 391, 287 P3d 1263 (2012)).|
The State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a judgment convicting defendant Tawanna D. Fuller of two violations that had been charged as misdemeanor offenses but subsequently had been tried as violations at the election of the prosecutor, on the basis that defendant was entitled to a jury trial and to the evidentiary standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Is a violation proceeding in which a person is charged with an offense that does not carry any potential for incarceration a "criminal prosecution, " such that the offender is entitled to a jury trial and other rights guaranteed under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution?
(2) Assuming that the framers of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution intended that the right to jury trial extend to some limited types of "serious" offenses that carry no jail term, what criteria should courts apply in determining whether the protections of a jury trial must be afforded? What factors are inapplicable?
(3) Did the legislature intend to "criminalize" violations when it provided in ORS 161.566 that a prosecutor "may elect to treat any misdemeanor as a Class A violation"?
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: