section 11 protections in Oregon

2025Craigen, 370 Or at 706 .

2025Craigen, 370 Or at 706 .

2025He relies on this court’s decision in State v. Spencer, 305 Or 59 , 750 P2d 147 (1988).

2025He relies on this court’s decision in State v. Spencer, 305 Or 59 , 750 P2d 147 (1988).

2023State v. Benton, 317 Or App 384, 429 , 505 P3d 975 (2022).

2023State v. Benton, 317 Or App 384, 429 , 505 P3d 975 (2022).

2015Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 (2014).

2015Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 (2014).

2015Although we have held that “[a] criminal contempt proceeding is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of [Article I, section 11 of] the constitution,” Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 674 , 16 P3d 1185 (2000) (citing Pyle and Pyle, 111 Or App 184, 186 , 826 P2d 640 (1992)), generally the Oregon legislature has made the protections of Article I, section 11, applicable to punitive contempt proceedings, except for the jury trial right: “Except for the right to a jury trial, the defendant is entitled to the constitutional and statutory protections, including the right to appointed couns

2015Although we have held that “[a] criminal contempt proceeding is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of [Article I, section 11 of] the constitution,” Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 674 , 16 P3d 1185 (2000) (citing Pyle and Pyle, 111 Or App 184, 186 , 826 P2d 640 (1992)), generally the Oregon legislature has made the protections of Article I, section 11, applicable to punitive contempt proceedings, except for the jury trial right: “Except for the right to a jury trial, the defendant is entitled to the constitutional and statutory protections, including the right to appointed couns

2015Although we have held that “[a] criminal contempt proceeding is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of [Article I, section 11 of] the constitution,” Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 674 , 16 P3d 1185 (2000) (citing Pyle and Pyle, 111 Or App 184, 186 , 826 P2d 640 (1992)), generally the Oregon legislature has made the protections of Article I, section 11, applicable to punitive contempt proceedings, except for the jury trial right: “Except for the right to a jury trial, the defendant is entitled to the constitutional and statutory protections, including the right to appointed couns

2015Although we have held that “[a] criminal contempt proceeding is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of [Article I, section 11 of] the constitution,” Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 674 , 16 P3d 1185 (2000) (citing Pyle and Pyle, 111 Or App 184, 186 , 826 P2d 640 (1992)), generally the Oregon legislature has made the protections of Article I, section 11, applicable to punitive contempt proceedings, except for the jury trial right: “Except for the right to a jury trial, the defendant is entitled to the constitutional and statutory protections, including the right to appointed couns

2013Like the defendant in State v. Benoit, 354 Or 302 , 311 P3d 874 (2013), also decided today, defendant in this case was arrested and incarcerated on misdemeanor charges that the state later reduced to violations under ORS ÍSINSGO). 1 The issue is whether the prosecutor’s election to treat the offenses as violations precluded defendant from asserting her right to a jury trial and other protections under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

2013Like the defendant in State v. Benoit, 354 Or 302 , 311 P3d 874 (2013), also decided today, defendant in this case was arrested and incarcerated on misdemeanor charges that the state later reduced to violations under ORS ÍSINSGO). 1 The issue is whether the prosecutor’s election to treat the offenses as violations precluded defendant from asserting her right to a jury trial and other protections under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

2011Proceeding from the premise that the Supreme Court in Campbell (and Moore ) did not intend "to overrule its prior case law identifying the types of hearsay to which the confrontation protections of Article I, section 11, do not apply[,]" William, 199 Or.App. at 196 , 110 P.3d 1114 , we concluded: " Conway remains good law.

2011Proceeding from the premise that the Supreme Court in Campbell (and Moore) did not intend “to overrule its prior case law identifying the types of hearsay to which the confrontation protections of Article I, section 11, do not apply[,]” William, 199 Or App at 196 , we concluded: “Conway remains good law.

2006Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), which involved protections under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 ORS 813.095 provides: “(1) A person commits the offense of refusal to take a breath test if the person refuses to take a breath test when requested to do so in accordance with the provisions of ORS 813.100. “(2) The offense described in this section, refusal to take a breath test, is a traffic offense punishable by a fine of at least $500 and not more than $1,000.

2006Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), which involved protections under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 ORS 813.095 provides: “(1) A person commits the offense of refusal to take a breath test if the person refuses to take a breath test when requested to do so in accordance with the provisions of ORS 813.100. “(2) The offense described in this section, refusal to take a breath test, is a traffic offense punishable by a fine of at least $500 and not more than $1,000.

2000See also Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Or 488, 493 , 747 P2d 984 (1987) (Oregon “common-law” right to remain free from restraints is similar to due process right, citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 US 501, 505 , 96 S Ct 1691 , 48 L Ed 2d 126 (1976); Illinois v. Allen, 397 US 337, 344 , 90 S Ct 1057 , 25 L Ed 2d 353 (1970)).

2000See also Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Or 488, 493 , 747 P2d 984 (1987) (Oregon “common-law” right to remain free from restraints is similar to due process right, citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 US 501, 505 , 96 S Ct 1691 , 48 L Ed 2d 126 (1976); Illinois v. Allen, 397 US 337, 344 , 90 S Ct 1057 , 25 L Ed 2d 353 (1970)).

2000See also Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Or 488, 493 , 747 P2d 984 (1987) (Oregon “common-law” right to remain free from restraints is similar to due process right, citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 US 501, 505 , 96 S Ct 1691 , 48 L Ed 2d 126 (1976); Illinois v. Allen, 397 US 337, 344 , 90 S Ct 1057 , 25 L Ed 2d 353 (1970)).

2000See also Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Or 488, 493 , 747 P2d 984 (1987) (Oregon “common-law” right to remain free from restraints is similar to due process right, citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 US 501, 505 , 96 S Ct 1691 , 48 L Ed 2d 126 (1976); Illinois v. Allen, 397 US 337, 344 , 90 S Ct 1057 , 25 L Ed 2d 353 (1970)).

2000We also explained that the protections found in Article I, section 11, and the federal Due Process Clause “embody a similar ‘fairness’ standard.” Amini, 154 Or App at 594 .

1997In support of its assertion, the majority relies on its understanding of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: State v. Stewart/Billings, 321 Or 1 , 892 P2d 1013 (1995), and Clark v. Gladden, 247 Or 629 , 432 P2d 182 (1967).

1997In support of its assertion, the majority relies on its understanding of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: State v. Stewart/Billings, 321 Or 1 , 892 P2d 1013 (1995), and Clark v. Gladden, 247 Or 629 , 432 P2d 182 (1967).

1997In support of its assertion, the majority relies on its understanding of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: State v. Stewart/Billings, 321 Or 1 , 892 P2d 1013 (1995), and Clark v. Gladden, 247 Or 629 , 432 P2d 182 (1967).

1997In support of its assertion, the majority relies on its understanding of two Oregon Supreme Court cases: State v. Stewart/Billings, 321 Or 1 , 892 P2d 1013 (1995), and Clark v. Gladden, 247 Or 629 , 432 P2d 182 (1967).

1997Although the majority concedes that the protections of section 11 are generally available to persons subjected to prosecution in Oregon, it opines that "[t]hose protections do not bear on the validity of defendant's out-of-state conviction." 150 Or.App. at 441 , 947 P.2d at 211 .

1997Although the majority concedes that the protections of section 11 are generally available to persons subjected to prosecution in Oregon, it opines that "[t]hose protections do not bear on the validity of defendant's out-of-state conviction." 150 Or.App. at 441 , 947 P.2d at 211 .

1996Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized such a right under the federal constitution, Rock v. Arkansas, 483 US 44 , 107 S Ct 2704 , 97 L Ed 2d 37 (1987), 4 the Oregon Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a parallel protection under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

1996Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized such a right under the federal constitution, Rock v. Arkansas, 483 US 44 , 107 S Ct 2704 , 97 L Ed 2d 37 (1987), 4 the Oregon Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a parallel protection under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

1987In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the court emphasized that a defendant has the right, to have counsel present at “ ‘[a]ny pre-trial adversarial contact of the state and a defendant at which some benefit of counsel would be lost if counsel is not present, that is, at which the state’s case may be enhanced or the defense impaired due to the absence of counsel * * *.’ ” 296 Or at 94 (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)).

1987In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the court emphasized that a defendant has the right, to have counsel present at “ ‘[a]ny pre-trial adversarial contact of the state and a defendant at which some benefit of counsel would be lost if counsel is not present, that is, at which the state’s case may be enhanced or the defense impaired due to the absence of counsel * * *.’ ” 296 Or at 94 (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)).

1987In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the court emphasized that a defendant has the right, to have counsel present at “ ‘[a]ny pre-trial adversarial contact of the state and a defendant at which some benefit of counsel would be lost if counsel is not present, that is, at which the state’s case may be enhanced or the defense impaired due to the absence of counsel * * *.’ ” 296 Or at 94 (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)).

1987In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the court emphasized that a defendant has the right, to have counsel present at “ ‘[a]ny pre-trial adversarial contact of the state and a defendant at which some benefit of counsel would be lost if counsel is not present, that is, at which the state’s case may be enhanced or the defense impaired due to the absence of counsel * * *.’ ” 296 Or at 94 (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)).

1987The court said that the protections of Article I, section 11, extend at least to “all court proceedings from arraignment through probation revocation * * * where, without the assistance of counsel, the legal interests of the defendant might be prejudiced.” 293 Or at 315 .