Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. Robertson v. Robertson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 15, 1993No. 882707; CA A69295Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEdmonds, J.

The majority’s answer to father’s third assignment of error1 violates Article I, section 19, of the Oregon Constitution, which says “there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.” Neither exception applies. Because father invoked his right against self-incrimination, he is incarcerated until he pays the entire arrearage under the trial court’s order. There is no evidence in the record that he has the present ability to pay that amount. The trial court concedes that fact when it says:

“[T]he reason there is insufficient evidence in the record to support…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Dean v. DeanOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  2. State Ex Rel. Mikkelsen v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. FrancisOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  4. State Ex Rel. Dwyer v. DwyerOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State Ex Rel. Hewson v. HewsonOregon Supreme Court · 1929

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API