OR: Asking juror question about refusal of consent was error, but here harmless

Oregon permits juror questions, and here one asked whether defendant willingly provided a DNA sample. Asking it on the record all amounted to error, but under plain error review, with other evidence in the case, it’s not reversible. State v. Longjaw, 318 Ore. App. 487, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 491 (Mar. 23, 2022).

In a case involving the “disagreeing cotenants” (Georgia v. Randolph), defendant denied living there and having authority to consent. “In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, the disagreeing-tenants rule is a narrow exception to the common-authority rule, it is grounded in social norms, and we disagree that it applies to the present facts. A person who wants to overcome a cotenant’s valid consent to a police search cannot have it both ways, simultaneously claiming no right to control who enters the premises but also objecting to the police’s entry.” State v. Gonzalez-Coria, 318 Ore. App. 524, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 481 (Mar. 23, 2022)

Briefing the state constitutional issue is not briefing the Fourth Amendment issue. [In Oregon, that seems futile anyway, but they had say it.] State v. Laney, 318 Ore. App. 509, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 493 (Mar. 23, 2022).

This entry was posted in Consent, Standing, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.