Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 11, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRETT LINDSEY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted on August 23, 2017.

         Washington County Circuit Court C141909CR; Rick Knapp, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Following her conditional guilty plea, defendant appeals, assigning error to the trial court's ruling that, under ORS 161.309(3), she could not present an insanity defense because she had not given timely notice of her intent to do so or shown "just cause" for her failure to file written notice of her intent to do so until 18 days before her scheduled trial date, well after the time of her plea. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously required her to file notice as soon as she became aware of the possibility of an insanity defense, or present "just cause" for not doing so. Defendant contends that, under the terms of ORS 161.309, she was entitled to file the notice "at any time" because she had just cause for not fling the notice at the time that she pleaded not guilty. The state does not dispute that defendant had just cause for not fling the notice at the time of her plea.

         Held:

         The trial court erred. Under ORS 161.309(3), a criminal defendant who shows just cause for not fling a notice of intent to present an insanity defense at the time of plea is entitled to file the notice "at any time" before trial.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [288 Or.App. 195] LAGESEN, P. J.

         While employed at a county jail, defendant had sex with an inmate six times. For that conduct, defendant was charged with six counts of first-degree custodial sexual misconduct, ORS 163.452, and six counts of first-degree official misconduct, ORS 162.415. She conditionally pleaded guilty to all counts, reserving the right to appeal nine pretrial rulings by the trial court, including (1) the court's ruling that she could not present an insanity defense because she had not given timely notice of her intent to do so, and had not demonstrated "just cause" for her failure to do so; (2) the court's denial of her motion to suppress statements that defendant made during an interrogation about her conduct; and (3) the court's ruling excluding the expert testimony that defendant wished to offer to prove that she was not acting voluntarily when she engaged in the conduct underlying the charges. On appeal, defendant assigns error to each of those rulings. We reject, without written discussion, defendant's challenges to the court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and its exclusion of the expert testimony as to the voluntariness of defendant's conduct, but conclude that the trial court erred when it ruled that defendant would not be permitted to present an insanity defense. We therefore reverse and remand.

         The facts pertinent to the issue on appeal are procedural and not in dispute. Defendant was arraigned on August 29, 2014, and pleaded not guilty to the charges against her at that time. At a pretrial conference in October 2014, the court scheduled trial for January 2015. In January, defendant moved to continue the trial date on the grounds that she needed to conduct further investigation and that the report on her psychological evaluation was not yet complete, and defendant anticipated there would be additional plea negotiations once it was. The trial court allowed the motion and reset the trial date until April 28, 2015.

         At the end of March, defense counsel contacted the prosecutor to let him know that the evaluator had not completed his report. At the same time, defense counsel told the prosecutor that there was a possibility of an insanity defense. On April 8, 20 days before the scheduled trial date, [288 Or.App. 196] defendant's psychological evaluator completed his report and provided it to defense counsel the next day. One day after receiving the report, defendant filed notice under ORS 161.309[1] of her intent to present evidence of insanity under ORS 161.295.[2]

         After receiving the notice, the state moved to prohibit defendant from presenting evidence of insanity. The state contended that defendant had not demonstrated just cause for waiting until 18 days before trial to file notice under ORS 161.309, which, in the state's view, the statute required defendant to do. The state argued that defendant must have been aware of the possibility of raising an insanity defense before the expert finished his report and, therefore, could have filed notice under ORS 161.309 much earlier. The state urged the trial court to infer that defendant purposely had waited to file the notice in order to delay trial. The state further contended that defendant's failure to file the notice earlier meant that trial would have to be delayed so that the state could prepare to meet defendant's insanity defense. Consequently, the state requested that defendant be precluded from presenting evidence of insanity, to avoid [288 Or.App. 197] delay, because defendant acted unreasonably by waiting as long as she did to give notice of her intent to present evidence of insanity.

         Defendant opposed the motion. Noting that the terms of the statute required the filing of the notice at the time of her plea, she argued that the circumstances demonstrated that she was not in a position to file the notice at that time, a point that the state did not dispute. Beyond that, defendant contended that she acted diligently to file the notice of her intent to raise the defense once she had the information needed to make that decision. Defense counsel told the court he first became aware of the possibility of an insanity defense during conversations with the expert in March, and noted that he had called the prosecutor to alert him of the possibility. Counsel explained that he was "reluctant to go out on a limb" by filing the notice of intent to present the insanity defense before reviewing the expert's report.

         The court granted the state's motion. It reasoned that if a defendant does not file written notice of intent to present an insanity defense at the time the defendant enters her plea, then ORS 161.309 requires the defendant to demonstrate a "good reason" for filing the notice at whatever time the defendant does file the notice. The court explained that the statute requires the filing of the notice at the earliest possible time unless the defendant demonstrates good cause for filing the notice at a later time. Observing that defense counsel had become aware of the possibility of the defense in the middle of March, the court concluded that the question under the statute was "why wasn't written notice given at that point?" Because defendant did not do so and, in the court's view, had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.