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.

In re C. C. W.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 7, 2018

In the Matter of C. C. W., a Youth.
v.
C. C. W., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,

          Argued and submitted March 22, 2018

          Washington County Circuit Court J160125; Michele C. Rini, Judge pro tempore.

          Christa Obold Eshleman argued the cause and fled the brief for appellant.

          Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

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

         Case Summary:

         Youth appeals from an amended judgment finding him within the juvenile court's jurisdiction based on acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. Youth argues that the juvenile court violated his rights against double jeopardy under the federal and state constitutions because the court had previously entered a judgment finding him to be within its jurisdiction for the same acts constituting the lesser-included offense of third-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.345. The state responds that youth faced jeopardy only once because the two judgments were part of single ongoing process; the state contends that the initial judgment was a mistake that could be corrected with an amended judgment. Held: Because the juvenile court entered a judgment finding youth within its jurisdiction for acts that would constitute the lesser-included offense, it acquitted youth of acts constituting the greater offense and was barred from further adjudication of those acts.

          [294 Or.App. 702] DeVORE, J.

         Youth appeals from an amended judgment finding him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court based on acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354.[1] Youth argues that, by adjudicating him for second-degree criminal mischief, the juvenile court violated his rights against double jeopardy under the state and federal constitutions, because the court had previously entered a judgment finding him to be within the court's jurisdiction for the same acts constituting the lesser-included offense of third-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.345.[2] Youth contends that the initial judgment on the lesser-included offense acquitted him of the greater offense and precluded the amended judgment. The state argues that youth faced jeopardy only once because the finding in the initial judgment was merely a mistake that the court was permitted to correct later as part of a single ongoing process of adjudicating youth.

         We agree with youth that the initial judgment finding him within the court's jurisdiction for acts constituting the lesser-included offense was an acquittal that barred a second adjudication on the original offense of second-degree criminal mischief. We therefore reverse the amended judgment and remand for entry of a dispositional judgment finding youth within the court's jurisdiction based on the lesser-included offense of third-degree criminal mischief.

         [294 Or.App. 703] The relevant facts are not in dispute. After an altercation involving youth, the state filed a petition to find him within the juvenile court's jurisdiction for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354.[3] In colloquy at trial, the court declared that youth was within its jurisdiction based on acts that would constitute a lesser-included offense, third-degree criminal mischief. The verbal ruling stemmed from a misunderstanding about needing proof of property value as an element of the offense. During a lunch recess, the court realized its mistake. When court reconvened, the parties considered the effect of the error. They disputed whether the court could correct its spoken ruling so as to find youth responsible for acts that would constitute the greater offense. The court concluded the day's discussion saying that they would "track that issue" at the upcoming disposition hearing and, in the interim, the parties should brief it.

         Despite that expressed uncertainty, the juvenile court proceeded to reduce its spoken ruling to writing immediately following the trial, entering a judgment finding youth within its jurisdiction based on acts constituting the lesser-included offense. On the judgment form, the court checked a box continuing the matter to a later date for disposition "& motion."[4]

         At the subsequent hearing, the juvenile court decided that it had authority to change or amend the judgment, and it found youth within its jurisdiction for the originally charged act, that, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree criminal mischief. The juvenile court [294 Or.App. 704] entered the amended judgment that is now on appeal, which includes a disposition based, in part, on the finding that youth committed acts that would constitute second-degree criminal mischief.

         On appeal, youth assigns error to the juvenile court's decision to enter the amended judgment, arguing it violated his rights against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.[5] We review the juvenile court's interpretation of those ...


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.