legal news

Register | Forgot Password

The principal issue in this case concerns the meaning and scope of ORS 153.108(1), (1) a statute that permits the state to prosecute separately a violation and a crime arising out of the same criminal episode, notwithstanding the general statutory prohibition on such prosecutions set out in ORS 131.515 (the "former jeopardy" statute). (2) Defendant contends that ORS 153.108(1) does not overcome that statutory former jeopardy bar when, as in this case, the state separately prosecutes a defendant for careless driving (ORS 811.135) (a traffic violation) and reckless driving (ORS 811.140) (a traffic crime), and both charges arise out of the same traffic accident. For the reasons that follow, court reject that argument. Court also reject defendant's alternative contention that, in spite of its noncriminal label, a careless driving charge under ORS 811.135 is sufficiently criminal in nature to place a defendant in "jeopardy" for purposes of the former jeopardy provision in the Oregon Constitution. Accordingly, court affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that rejected those arguments and held that defendant could be prosecuted separately for careless driving and reckless driving. SeeState v. Warner, 200 Or App 65, 112 P3d 464 (2005) (so holding).

Search thread for
Download thread as

Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2022 The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2022 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.