Legal Opinion

State v. Driver

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 28, 1996No. 94-4739-C-2; CA A88609 (Control); 95-1225-C-3; CA A88610PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.

The indictments in these consolidated cases charged each defendant with failure to register as a sex offender. Or Laws 1991, ch 389, § 4, codified in 1995 as ORS 181.599 (section 4).1 Defendants argued to the trial court that, because they committed their crimes before the relevant statutes became effective, those statutes do not apply to them. Alternatively, they argued that applying the statutes to them would violate the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The trial court accepted the ex post facto argument and granted the motions, thus preventing any further…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. ClumCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  2. State v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. State v. ShipleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API