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. Walsh

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 18, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH EDGLEY WALSH, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 26, 2016.

         Washington County Circuit Court C131347CR; Rick Knapp, Judge.

          Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 19 counts of various sexual crimes, contending that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss four sexual offenses because the venue for them was improper. The state responds that defendant's argument on appeal has materially changed from the argument that he made below and, thus, is not preserved and should not be considered by the court.

         Held:

         Because the argument that defendant advanced on appeal conflicted with the argument that he had made below, defendant did not preserve the argument that he made on appeal, and, consequently, the court rejected defendant's argument as unpreserved.

         Affirmed.

         [288 Or.App. 279] ARMSTRONG, P. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 19 counts of various sexual crimes, raising 19 assignments of error. We reject all but four assignments without written discussion. In assignments two, three, four, and five, defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss four sexual offenses because the venue for them was improper. The state responds that defendant's argument on appeal has materially changed from the argument that he made below and, thus, is not preserved. We agree with the state and, accordingly, affirm.

         We recount only those facts relevant to venue, and, because defendant was convicted by a jury, we state those facts in the light most favorable to the state. See, e.g., State v. Davis. 248 Or.App. 263, 265, 273 P.3d 251 (2012), rev den, 354 Or. 656 (2013). Defendant was charged, among other things, with crimes related to a photograph that defendant had taken of his sexual abuse of a child, which had occurred between June and September 2009. During that time, the victim, who was 10 years old, spent time with defendant in a limited number of locations, including at the victim's home in Vancouver, Washington; at defendant's home in Washington County; and on a camping and road trip to Crook County, including locations between the victim's home in Vancouver and Crook County. When first interviewed by Child Abuse Response and Evaluation Services (CARES), the victim recounted that defendant had sexually abused him at the victim's Vancouver home and on the camping trip. When he was interviewed by the police a few years later, the victim remembered that defendant had also abused him at defendant's home in Washington County.

         At some point, defendant took a photograph of his hand touching the victim's penis. Based on that photograph, the state charged defendant with four sexual offenses: first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427; using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.670; first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.684; and unlawful contact with a child, ORS 163.479. The photograph had no identifying features by which to determine where it was taken. It had been taken with a cellphone camera, but the [288 Or.App. 280] electronic version of the photograph did not include a GPS location embedded in the file, and the ...


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.