State v. Hemenway
302 P.3d 413
| Or. | 2013Background
- This is a mootness and vacatur dispute concerning State v. Hemenway, decided by the Oregon Supreme Court in 2013 and vacated as moot.
- Defendant Leland J. Hemenway died on January 27, 2012, more than a year before the January 2013 decision affirming his conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
- Defense counsel filed a petition for reconsideration and a motion to vacate after the decision; defense later asserted mootness due to death.
- The State argued the case would remain a public interest concern and urged against vacatur to preserve lower-court holdings, including Hall’s consent-search analysis.
- ORAP 8.05(2)(c)(ii) provides a presumptive vacatur/dismissal disposition when a defendant dies while an appeal could reverse the conviction; the court considered this and equitable factors.
- The court ultimately concluded the case was moot when decided and vacated its January 2013 decision, the Court of Appeals’ decision, and the judgment of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case was moot when the court issued its decision | Defense: death rendered moot; Yancy governs jurisdictional lack of power. | State: mootness did not strip court of authority to vacate or consider equities. | Case moot; vacatur proper under equities |
| Whether the court should vacate its decision after mootness | Defendant: equities, Kerr factors, and ORAP 8.05(2)(c)(ii) support vacatur to avoid futile work. | State: public interest in stability favors not vacating due to precedent and ongoing consent-search issues. | Court vacates both the decision and related judgments; vacatur appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hemenway, 353 Or 129 (2013) (reversed lower court on consent-search issue; later vacated as moot)
- State v. Hemenway (Appellate), 232 Or App 407 (2009) (vacated by higher court in related proceedings)
- Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345 (2004) (outright rule: no authority to decide moot cases; controversy must be justiciable)
- Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446 (1982) (existence of justiciable controversy required for judicial power)
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402 (1993) (mootness and authority principles related to discretionary decisions)
- Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or 241 (2006) (equitable factors for vacatur and discretionary relief)
- Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 376 (2007) (application of Kerr-like equities to a vacatur decision in a moot case)
- Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 US 18 (1994) (principal condition for vacatur: equitable relief depends on causation of mootness)