|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|S060376, S060455, S060610|
|State of Oregon v. Mark N. Babson|
|Supreme Court Courtroom|
|Jossi K. Davidson, on behalf of Gregory J. Cleland|
Carson Whitehead and Anna Marie Joyce on behalf of State of Oregon
Timothy R. Volpert, on behalf of Mark N. Babson, Michele C. Darr, Teresa L. Gooch, Margaret M. Morton, George G. Meek
|each side will be allowed 45 minutes of argument time of argument time|
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Mark N. Babson (S060376) (S060455) (S060610) (A144037) (Control) (A144038) (A144039) (A144042) (A144043) (A144345) (appeal from Marion County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 249 Or App 278, 279 P3d 222 (2012)).|
The petitions for review in these three Supreme Court cases arose out of the same consolidated Court of Appeals case.
In S060376, petitioner Gregory J. Cleland has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that held, in part, that the rule which was the basis for his conviction for second-degree criminal trespass was properly promulgated and did not on its face violate any provision of the Oregon Constitution.
In S060455, the State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that held, in part, that the trial court erroneously had granted the state's motion to quash subpoenas directed to the co-chairs of the Legislative Administrative Committee, and that reversed and remanded to permit defendants to pursue the prohibited discovery in support of defendants' contention that the rule which was the basis for their convictions was unconstitutional as applied to them.
Finally, in S060610, petitioners Mark N. Babson, Michele C. Darr, Teresa L. Gooch, Margaret M. Morton, and George G. Meek have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that held, in part, that the rule that was the basis for their convictions for second-degree criminal trespass was properly promulgated and did not on its face violate any provision of the Oregon Constitution.
On review, the issues are:
(S060376, petition for review by Gregory J. Cleland):
Whether, under Article I, section 26, of the Oregon Constitution, the Oregon Legislature may prohibit persons from peaceably assembling overnight to conduct a day-and-night political vigil at the entrance to the Oregon State Capitol for the purpose of (a) consulting for their common good, or (b) instructing the Governor and their other representatives in government, or (c) applying to the Legislature for the redress of grievances.
(S060455, petition for review by State of Oregon):
(1) Does Article IV, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, sometimes referred to as the Speech and Debate Clause, protect legislators from inquiry about whether they asked other government actors to enforce a legislative rule?
(2) Absent a showing that evidence will be material and favorable to a criminal defendant, is a criminal defendant entitled to subpoena a public official to testify in court?
(S060610, petition for review by Mark N. Babson, Michele C. Darr, Teresa L. Gooch, Margaret M. Morton, and George G. Meek):
(1) Is a rule necessarily immune from a facial overbreadth analysis because it avoids expressly restricting protected expression, when the rule obviously or even purposefully restricts a substantial amount of protected expression, in that the restriction of expression is foreseeable and traceable to its terms?
(2) Can a rule properly be deemed speech-neutral where it avoids expressly implicating speech through the use of broad language, but where the proscription of a substantial amount of protected expression is nevertheless foreseeable, i.e., traceable to the express terms of the rule?
(3) Must the breadth of, and burden imposed by, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions be analyzed under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution?
(4) Where an as-applied challenge under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, or Article I, section 26, of the Oregon Constitution hinges on the motives of state actors, are questions about statements made by such actors that are probative of such motives (those of the declarant and the witness) properly excluded as hearsay?
(5) Under the "first things first" doctrine, if the remedy under the Oregon Constitution requires further trial proceedings, should a court determine if the United States Constitution offers a remedy that would dispose of the case?
(6) Can a legislative committee rule, enacted outside the constitutionally-defined legislative process and the safeguards of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, restrict constitutionally protected expression in a public space?
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: