State v. Copeland, 522 P.3d 909

Defendant (Copeland) shot and killed a private security guard; defendant conceded he fired but claimed self-defense.
The victim was wearing a body camera and recorded ~1 minute of the interaction (including the confrontation and the shots) without notifying participants.
Defendant moved pretrial to exclude the body-camera recording under ORS 165.540(1)(c) and ORS 41.910 as an unlawful recording; the State sought to admit it under ORS 165.540(5)(a) (exception for a person who records a conversation "during a felony that endangers human life").
The trial court admitted the body-camera footage, reasoning the recording captured a felony that endangered human life and thus fit the (5)(a) exception; the recording was played at trial.
Separately, ~10 days before trial the defense requested a three-week continuance to review ~180 hours of defendant’s jail telephone recordings recently produced; the trial court denied the continuance.
Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm and related weapon counts; the Court of Appeals affirmed both the evidentiary ruling and the denial of the continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the victim’s body-camera recording is inadmissible under ORS 165.540 and ORS 41.910 because the victim did not notify participants before recording	The (State) argued the (5)(a) exception applies whenever the recording captured a felony that endangered human life, regardless of when the recording was initiated	Copeland argued the exception applies only if the person initiated recording during the felony (an exigent circumstance); if recording began before the felony, it was an unlawful recording and must be excluded	Court held the statutory text covers recordings that occur “during” a felony; "during" includes recordings that began before but captured the felony, so the exception applied and the recording was admissible
Whether denial of a three-week continuance to allow defense counsel to review ~180 hours of jail calls was an abuse of discretion	The (State) argued defendant knew calls were recorded, had lengthy pretrial time in custody, had previously received a continuance, and further delay would be substantial; no prejudice shown	Copeland argued counsel needed three weeks to review the recordings to prepare defense; lack of time prejudiced ability to use/contest evidence	Court held denial was within the trial court’s broad discretion given timing, notice, case history, and delay; no abuse of discretion

Tri-Met v. Posh Ventures, LLC, 244 Or. App. 425 (2011) (evidentiary rulings grounded in statutory construction reviewed for legal error)
State ex rel Carlile v. Frost, 326 Or. 607 (1998) (statutory questions about admissibility present legal questions of construction)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (textualist framework: statutory text controls over conflicting legislative history)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or. 606 (1993) (statutory construction methodology and use of context and history)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; cited on discovery issues)
State v. Wolfer, 241 Or. 15 (1965) (continuance motions addressed to trial court’s discretion)
State v. Powell, 322 Or. App. 37 (2022) (standard for appellate review of continuance denials)