“The Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of public survival by unhoused people in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson in June 2024. This article examines that decision and considers why Grants Pass had not enforced its camping ban against unhoused people when the author visited the city one year later. One important reason is that…
The Oregon Court of Appeals examined a state sentencing statute that prohibits juvenile life without parole sentences (ORS 161.740) and held that it applies when an individual is convicted in adult court and sentenced for an offense committed when they were under the age of 18 if the sentence was imposed on or after January…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court’s adjudication of reckless burning, holding that a finding of recklessness requires evidence around a young person’s subjective awareness of risk. This case involved a 13-year-old youth who lit a fire on a grassy hill which spread and ended up damaging several homes. At issue was whether…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court adjudication based on insufficient evidence and provided the following language in support below. “Our case law makes clear, however, that [a] youth must have done more to be liable as an accomplice.” Youth did not have a legal obligation to refrain from being present or to discourage the behavior of…
On April 9, 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that a probation condition ordering a youth “to follow probation conditions as designated by OYA [the Oregon Youth Authority]” was legally insufficient to determine whether a young person violated a term of their probation. The Court explained, “without knowing what probation conditions OYA had actually…
To read the opinion in this case, please click here.
To read the Amici Brief submitted by Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and Oregon Justice Resource Center, please click here.
From the introduction: “In this Pathway we explore why youth of color are overrepresented in the juvenile detention system and review what has been done in some sites to reduce the number of minority youth in detention. Dealing with disparity in the use of detention has been one of the most challenging pieces of the…
From the introduction: “This policy brief will review the work done in one jurisdiction that has succeeded in reducing the number of minority youth detained pre-trial, summarize the lessons learned from innovations in Multnomah County, Oregon, and highlight their national significance. While the more general nationwide picture on reducing racial disparity in the juvenile justice…
The U.S. Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment did not require an accused person to give pretrial notice to the prosecution of his alibi defense and witnesses unless the accused person had reciprocal discovery rights. The conviction was reversed and remanded. To support this ruling, the Court stated: “Although the…
The Oregon Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to “accord a hearing before a [youth]can be remanded to the adult criminal process.” In this case, the remand statute at issue ORS 419.533 did not expressly provide for a hearing before transfer to adult court but the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the intent…
