My RSS Feedhttp://www.nexuspdx.com/index.htmlHot News!enuser@domain.comCopyright 2011 Lee Dudley2011-11-22T14:10:17-08:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:45:35 -0800Complaint Filing - Titile VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964user@domain.comNexus2011-11-22T14:10:17-08:00http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/c7e1cf3254cce534a8b24553f6c1408f-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/c7e1cf3254cce534a8b24553f6c1408f-4.html#unique-entry-id-4
Complaint Filing - FINAL]]>Demand Letter - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964user@domain.comNexus2011-11-22T14:06:07-08:00http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/a69ae0f828090d2765e368373d2317f5-3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/a69ae0f828090d2765e368373d2317f5-3.html#unique-entry-id-3
Demand Letter - Final]]>Oregon Appellate Brief - "Defense to Sexting Prosecution under 163.670 & 2010's Uncodified Measure 73"user@domain.comLaw School Legal Writing2011-04-14T14:28:58-07:00http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/c646888727453dc1307b14beb103c5c0-1.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/c646888727453dc1307b14beb103c5c0-1.html#unique-entry-id-1[ Full Appellate Brief in PDF format can be viewed HERE ]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
 On December 23, 2010 a grand jury indicted defendant, Tanya Jackson (seventeen years of age), as an adult on two counts for “Using a Child in a Display of Sexually Explicit Conduct” under ORS § 163.670 (1985) when she photographed her girlfriend and herself in the nude using a cell phone and texting the image(s) to her girlfriend, a minor female. On January 5, 2011, the Multnomah County Circuit Court found Tanya guilty on both counts. On January 17, 2011, Judge Richard C. Baldwin, issued a Judgment of Conviction and Sentence whereby he sentenced Tanya to a mandatory seventy months on Count 1, pursuant to ORS § 137.707 and twenty-five years on Count 2 pursuant to the recently passed Measure 73 (aka The Oregon Crimefighting Act). Defendant, Tanya Jackson, timely appeals judgment of conviction and imposition of the Measure 73 sentence.

Nature of the Judgment
 The nature of the judgment in the court below is an order denying defendant’s Motion of Acquittal. ORS § 163.670 (1985).
Questions Presented on Appeal
I. Under ORS § 163.670, “A person commits the crime of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct if the person… induces a child to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct.” Did the court err when it convicted defendant, Tanya Jackson, of “inducing a child,” herself, “to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct"? ORS § 163.670 (1985).

II. Oregon Voters enacted Measure 73 in November 2010. § 2(a) of the new statute states “Any person who is convicted of a major felony sex crime, who has one (or more) previous conviction of a major felony sex crime, shall be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.” Tanya Jackson, 17-year-old girl, who sent pictures of her girlfriend via a cell phone text message, was charged under the statute. Did the trial court err in ruling that “any person” applies to children for the purposes of this statute?

Proposed Rule of Law
  • The phrase “a person . . . induces a child . . .” as used in the Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.670 means an individual human being persuades another person, under the age of majority. ORS § 163.670 (1985).
  • The Words “any person” in § 2(a) of Measure 73 Means “adults” and Therefore Excludes Measure 73 from Applying to Juveniles under ORS § 163.670 (1985).

Summary of the Argument
I. The Trial Court Erred in Convicting Defendant, Tanya Jackson, in Violation of ORS § 163.670 and Should Vacate the Judgment of Conviction on Count Two.
The legislature enacted ORS §163. 670 in 1985 as part of Senate Bill 375 with the purpose of preventing child pornography. The specific purpose of ORS § 163.670 is to make it an offense against a person for the visual recording of sexual conduct of children. The text of the statute states that “A person commits the crime of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct if the person employs, authorizes, permits, compels or induces a child to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct for any person to observe or to record in a photograph” and that “using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct is a Class A felony.” ORS § 163.670 (1985).
The court should interpret “A person . . . induces a child to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct for any person to observe or to record in a photograph” to mean that an individual human being persuades another person, who is under the age of majority, to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct as provided in ORS § 163.670. In other words, a person is not able to induce herself. Here, the text, context, legislative history, and general maxims support that construction. Accordingly, the court should find that ORS § 163.670 does not apply to Tanya Jackson and vacate the judgment of conviction on count two.

II. The Trial Court Erred in Sentencing Defendant, Tanya Jackson, in Violation of Measure 73 and Should Vacate the Sentence.

 Voters enacted Measure 73, Oregon Crimefighting Statute, in November 2010. The relevant section states: “§ 2(a). Any person who is convicted of a major felony sex crime, who has one (or more) previous conviction of a major felony sex crime, shall be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.” Oregon Voters Guide, http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22010/guide/m73_crs.html (accessed Feb. 2, 2011).
The primary question for the court is whether “any person” includes juveniles and should apply to Tanya Jackson, a seventeen-year-old honors student, in this case. The text, context, legislative history, and general maxims all lead to the conclusion that “any person” equates to “adults” to the exclusion of children from its scope. Accordingly, the court should vacate the Measure 73 sentence and remand to the trial court for sentencing under ORS 137.707 (2009).]]>Legal Memo III - Oregon Warrantless Search Issueuser@domain.comLaw School Legal Writing2011-01-17T04:45:45-08:00http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/1389c439d3d3f3e5f2dc0fa55982d40d-0.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.nexuspdx.com/blog/files/1389c439d3d3f3e5f2dc0fa55982d40d-0.html#unique-entry-id-0Re: Smith - Oregon Warrantless Search Issue

Question Presented

Under the Oregon Constitution’s search and seizure provision, Article I, section 9 does an “knock and talk” investigation by the police rise to the level of an unreasonable search when receiving no reply the police proceed into a public alleyway to look into the garage window of the absent resident and are able to see through half-open curtains after accidentally bumping tree branches on the defendant’s property?

Short Answer

No. The police investigation does not rise to the level of an unreasonable search. There were no clear prohibitions barring them from locating the resident; absent such a prohibition the police may continue as long as it would require no special effort as exhibited by a reasonable citizen. Furthermore, an individual can sacrifice their right of privacy by their conduct, which the individual in this case did by providing a sign indicating where a visitor might locate her and leaving the curtains of her garage window open. Bumping a tree is not prohibited by the Constitution, nor is the officers’ bending down to see through the branches. Lastly, the main criteria to determine an unlawful search is whether the conduct of the police require special effort. None of the actions of the police in this case rise to that level and are therefore lawful.

]]>