138.052 Appeal
from judgment of conviction and sentence of death; direct review by Supreme
Court. (1) The
judgment of conviction and sentence of death entered under ORS 163.150 (1)(f)
is subject to automatic and direct review by the Supreme Court. The review by
the Supreme Court has priority over all other cases and shall be heard in
accordance with rules adopted by the Supreme Court.
(2)
Notwithstanding ORS 163.150 (1)(a), after automatic and direct review of a
conviction and sentence of death the following apply:
(a) If a
reviewing court finds prejudicial error in the sentencing proceeding only, the
court may set aside the sentence of death and remand the case to the trial
court. No error in the sentencing proceeding results in reversal of the
defendant’s conviction for aggravated murder. Upon remand and at the election
of the state, the trial court shall either:
(A) Sentence the
defendant to imprisonment for life in the custody of the Department of
Corrections as provided in ORS 163.105 (1)(c); or
(B) Impanel a new
sentencing jury for the purpose of conducting a new sentencing proceeding to
determine if the defendant should be sentenced to:
(i) Death;
(ii) Imprisonment
for life without the possibility of release or parole as provided in ORS
163.105 (1)(b); or
(iii)
Imprisonment for life in the custody of the Department of Corrections as
provided in ORS 163.105 (1)(c).
(b) The new
sentencing proceeding is governed by the provisions of ORS 163.150 (1), (2),
(3) and (5). A transcript of all testimony and all exhibits and other evidence
properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing proceeding are admissible
in the new sentencing proceeding. Either party may recall any witness who
testified at the prior trial or sentencing proceeding and may present
additional relevant evidence.
(c) The
provisions of this subsection are procedural and apply to any defendant
sentenced to death after December 6, 1984. [Formerly 138.012]
Note: 138.052 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 138
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
138.053 [1989 c.849 §3; 1993 c.14 §16;
2001 c.644 §2; 2003 c.737 §101; repealed by 2017 c.529 §26]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2023 · leading case:
State v. Taylor, 434 P.3d 331 (Or. 2019).
State v. Taylor, 434 P.3d 331 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 2× “ORS 138.052. III. ANALYSIS On direct review to this court, defendant raises 131 assignments of error.”
State v. Bartol, 496 P.3d 1013 (Or. 2021).
“ORS 138.052(1). In the trial court, defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.”
State v. Mott, 527 P.3d 758 (Or. 2023).
“See ORS 138.052(1) (“The judgment of conviction and sentence of death entered under ORS 163.”
State v. Rogers, 499 P.3d 45 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 2× “We described much of the relevant factual and pro- cedural background in one of the prior appeals: “Over a period of time in 1987, police discovered the bodies of seven women in the Molalla Forest. The State Medical Examiner determined that each of the women had been stabbed or…”
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole, 522 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“122(4) states, “The provisions of this section do not apply to prisoners sentenced to life imprison- ment without the possibility of release or parole under ORS 138.052 or 163.150.” As explained above, that sentence is different from a life imprisonment sentence, which entitles…”
State v. Brumwell, 507 P.3d 258 (Or. 2022).
“That provision has since been recodified at ORS 138.052(2)(a). 478 State v. Brumwell Finally, this court looked to its then-recent decision in Hattersley, in which it had construed the statute autho- rizing state’s appeals, and concluded that the “legislature intended to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.052(1) — 3 cases
State v. Bartol, 496 P.3d 1013 (Or. 2021).
“ORS 138.052(1). In the trial court, defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.”
State v. Mott, 527 P.3d 758 (Or. 2023).
“See ORS 138.052(1) (“The judgment of conviction and sentence of death entered under ORS 163.”
State v. Rogers, 499 P.3d 45 (Or. 2021).
“We described much of the relevant factual and pro- cedural background in one of the prior appeals: “Over a period of time in 1987, police discovered the bodies of seven women in the Molalla Forest. The State Medical Examiner determined that each of the women had been stabbed or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.052(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Rogers, 499 P.3d 45 (Or. 2021).
“We described much of the relevant factual and pro- cedural background in one of the prior appeals: “Over a period of time in 1987, police discovered the bodies of seven women in the Molalla Forest. The State Medical Examiner determined that each of the women had been stabbed or…”
State v. Brumwell, 507 P.3d 258 (Or. 2022).
“That provision has since been recodified at ORS 138.052(2)(a). 478 State v. Brumwell Finally, this court looked to its then-recent decision in Hattersley, in which it had construed the statute autho- rizing state’s appeals, and concluded that the “legislature intended to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.