State v. King
361 Or. 646
Or.2017Background
- Defendant (then 17) pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree assault and no-contest to 1st-degree robbery after an attack that left the victim with severe brain injuries. Parties negotiated an oral plea; no written term reserved any right to pursue homicide if the victim later died.
- At plea and sentencing, neither prosecutor, defense counsel, nor the court discussed the possibility of the victim’s later death or future homicide charges; the plea petition stated no promises beyond those made in open court.
- The victim remained severely disabled for months and then died roughly six months after defendant’s plea; the medical examiner attributed death to complications of the assault.
- State later obtained indictments charging felony murder and first-degree manslaughter; defendant moved to dismiss arguing the homicide charges violated the plea agreement.
- The trial court found the victim’s death was reasonably foreseeable to the prosecutor, the plea agreement was silent on future homicide charges, and the prosecutor had not reserved the right to reprosecute; the court granted dismissal.
- Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, adopting a contractual default rule that, when the prosecutor reasonably foresees the victim may die, the state must disclose any reservation to reprosecute for homicide as part of the plea deal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether silence in a plea agreement permits later homicide reprosecution when the victim dies and death was foreseeable to the prosecutor | Plea silence does not bar reprosecution; ordinary contract rules and prosecutorial discretion mean defendant assumed the risk and state may prosecute later | When death was foreseeable to the prosecutor and the plea was silent, a default contractual term bars reprosecution unless the state expressly reserved that right | The court affirmed dismissal: where death was reasonably foreseeable and plea/agreement negotiations were silent, the state must disclose a reservation to reprosecute; absent that, reprosecution is barred |
| Whether statutory provisions (ORS 135.405, ORS 135.425) foreclose a contractual default rule | ORS 135.405 shows silence isn’t a promise to refrain; defense counsel must advise defendant, so default rule is unnecessary | Statutes do not preclude a contractual default rule protecting defendants who waive trial rights without being informed of foreseeable contingencies | Statutes do not negate a contractual default rule; legislative history supports plea-process transparency and does not foreclose judicial gap-filling |
| Whether ordinary contract gap-filling (default rules) applies to plea agreements | Courts should apply ordinary contract principles (risk assumed if foreseeable) and place on defense to foresee/address risks | Plea agreements are unique due to waiver of constitutional rights; default rules should protect the defendant by placing expression burden on the party (prosecutor) better positioned to foresee risk | Default rules are appropriate here given waiver of constitutional rights; burden should be on prosecutor to disclose reservation to reprosecute when death is foreseeable |
| Whether defendant may enforce plea understanding after testifying at codefendant’s trial | State: testimony and plea petition disclaimers undermine defendant’s expectation; remedies available through post-conviction remedies | Defendant reasonably believed plea concluded the incident and testified relying on that understanding; reprosecution undermines his bargain and waivers | Court emphasized enforcement of plea expectations and confirmed defendant’s reasonable expectation that the plea ended prosecution absent an express reservation by the state |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heisser, 350 Or 12 (explaining plea agreements are informed by contract principles but also by unique criminal-law protections)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (promises by prosecutor that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
- Smith Tug v. Columbia–Pac. Towing, 250 Or 612 (foreseeable risk may give rise to inference that party assumed the risk in contract context)
- State v. Dye, 127 Ohio St. 3d 357 (holding that, absent an express reservation by the state to pursue homicide, defendant reasonably expected plea would end prosecutions for the incident)