State of Oregon v. Gregory Allen Bowen, 03/09/2012

Today, oral arguments will be heard for Oregon v. Bowen at the Oregon Supreme Court. Watch the webcast here.

ENTRY FORM
CALENDAR STATUS: Active
SC Number:		S058431
CA Number:
Case Title:		State of Oregon v. Gregory Allen Bowen
Date:		03/09/2012
Time:		01:30 PM
Location:		Supreme Court
Attorneys:		Robin A. Jones on behalf of Gregory Allen Bowen Timothy A. Sylwester on behalf of the State of Oregon
Comments:
Statement of Issues:		State of Oregon v. Gregory Allen Bowen (S058431) (on automatic and direct review of the judgment of conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Curry County Circuit Court). This case comes before the Oregon Supreme Court on automatic and direct review of a judgment of conviction and sentence of death following defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of aggravated murder. This is the second automatic review involving this defendant. In 2006, the Supreme Court remanded the original judgments of conviction and sentences of death to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment that complied with ORS 167.067(1) (setting out requirements for identifying separate punishable offenses). Following this court’s remand in 2006, the trial court held a hearing at which it denied several defense motions; the court then entered a corrected judgment that again imposed the death sentence. Defendant raises four assignments of error, all relating to denial of his motions at the resentencing hearing. Defendant has indicated two assignments of error on which he plans to focus oral argument and two assignments of error that he plans to address if time permits. Those assignments of error present the following questions: (1) Whether, on remand, the trial court was obligated to follow the remand procedure set out in ORS 138.012(2)(a), rather than simply entering a corrected judgment. (2) Whether the trial court erred by signing the corrected judgment as the “29th day of March, 2010, nunc pro tunc April 17, 2003.” (3) Whether the trial court erred by denying as untimely defendant’s motion for new trial based on use of a stun device at the original trial (including constitutional arguments under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution (right to impartial jury) and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (right to impartial jury; prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment)). (4) Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, in light of the length of delay between this court’s original decision and resentencing on remand (constitutional arguments under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution (justice “without delay”) and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (right to speedy trial)). The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:

About these ads