State v. Inloes
239 Or. App. 49
| Or. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Defendant Crystal Ann Inloes was convicted in October 2008 of four counts of first-degree criminal mistreatment (one for each child).
- Evidence at trial relied on the old Damofle/Quintana standard describing ‘physical care’ to include safety and well-being in the home.
- The defense did not move for a judgment of acquittal; appellate review was nonetheless pursued as plain error after Baker-Krofft changed controlling law.
- The home conditions described included filthy areas, clutter, and potential fire hazards, but the children appeared healthy and appropriately clothed when police inspected with consent.
- Baker-Krofft (August 2010) rejected the Damofle/Quintana framework, limiting ‘physical care’ to present deprivation rather than mere risk of future harm, and rejected broad environmental risk interpretations.
- The Court of Appeals later concluded the convictions were based on legally insufficient evidence under Baker-Krofft and exercised discretion to correct the error, reversing the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports criminal mistreatment under current law | Inloes; Damofle/Quintana standard applied previously supports conviction | Inloes; Baker-Krofft renders prior standard insufficient | Convictions reversed under intervening law |
| Whether plain error review is appropriate after Baker-Krofft | State: issue not preserved but plain error should be reviewed | Inloes: plain error should be reviewed due to intervening law | Plain error review applied to correct a substantial error under Ailes discretion |
| Whether the court should exercise Ailes discretion to correct error | Reversal aligns with preserving integrity of appellate review | Reversal justified by issues of fairness and reliability | Convictions reversed despite preservation issue, due to material change in law and gravity of error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker-Krofft, 348 Or. 655 (2010) (rejected Damofle/Quintana framework; limited ‘physical care’ to present deprivation)
- State v. Damofle/Quintana, 89 Or.App. 620 (1988) (defined broad Damofle/Quintana ‘physical care’ standard—environmental risk as care omission)
- State v. Banks, 218 Or.App. 593 (2008) (intermediate relief for intervening legal developments; preservation considerations)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (1991) (defines factors for exercising plain error review and correction of errors)
- State v. Jury, 185 Or.App. 132 (2002) (plain error review framework dependent on law at time of appeal)
- State v. McCants/Walker, 231 Or.App. 570 (2009) (application of Damofle/Quintana prior to Baker-Krofft; later reversed)