State v. Bray
291 P.3d 727
Or.2012Background
- Bray was convicted of multiple violent felonies in Deschutes County; victim's civil action involved hard drive clones from the laptop.
- Defendant sought production of a hard drive clone for forensic examination; trial court denied production.
- During civil proceedings two copies of the hard drive clone were created; protective orders kept clones secure.
- After conviction Bray sought to place an existing civil-clone under seal in the criminal record for appellate review.
- Trial court held a hearing, found seal under the crime-victim rights would not violate Article I, §42, and issued related orders.
- Victim timely appealed; district attorney filed responses; court recharacterized the interlocutory appeal as a petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sealing a hard drive clone violates crime-victim rights | Bray argues the seal violates §42(1)(c). | Bray contends the clone must be accessible for appellate review. | No violation; order preserved victim rights and preserved appealability. |
| Proper avenue for appellate review of crime-victim rights order | Interlocutory appeal appropriate under ORS 147.537. | Petition for review under ORS 147.539 is proper when mislabeling occurs. | Interlocutory notice construed as petition for review; review allowed. |
| Whether new district attorney issues are properly before the court | Declined to address new issues; not properly before court; affirmed by focusing on timely, proper issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crenshaw, 307 Or 160 (1988) (preservation of record to review error in appellate context)
- State v. Harvey, 203 Or App 343 (2005) (records sealed for appellate review; preservation of error)
- Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11 (2006) (constitutional meaning of discovery; ejusdem generis context)
- State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390 (2011) (timing of appeals under victim-rights framework)