529 P.3d 278
Or. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant (Ovalle) was convicted at trial; this court previously reversed some convictions and remanded for resentencing. The same trial judge (Erwin) presided at the resentencing.
- After remand, defendant moved to disqualify Judge Erwin under ORS 14.210(1)(c), alleging the judge is related within the third degree to an attorney in the district attorney’s office.
- Judge Erwin denied the ORS 14.210 motion summarily, relying on ORS 14.260(3) and stating the motion was unavailable because he had made prior substantive rulings in the case; no evidentiary hearing was held.
- Defendant appealed the denial; the State argued the motion was procedurally barred or waived and also challenged preservation.
- The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the ORS 14.210 motion, that the defendant preserved his argument, and that the court should have held a hearing on the merits; the court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 14.260(3) bars an ORS 14.210 for-cause disqualification motion after the judge has made substantive rulings | ORS 14.260(3) procedurally bars the motion because judge already ruled on substantive matters | ORS 14.260(3) governs ORS 14.250 motions only; ORS 14.210 for-cause motions are not barred and must be heard | Court: ORS 14.260(3) does not bar ORS 14.210 motions; trial court erred in summarily denying motion and must address merits/have a hearing |
| Whether defendant preserved the challenge to the denial | The State: challenge not preserved | Defendant: filed written motion and argued below; preserved | Court: preserved |
| Whether the court should have held a hearing to resolve existence of the familial relationship and waiver under ORS 14.210(2) | State: procedural objections justified summary denial | Defendant: merits (existence and waiver) must be litigated at hearing | Court: hearing required to resolve existence and waiver; merits not reached below |
| Pro se claim that the court failed to instruct on a lesser-included offense | State: claim unpreserved | Defendant (pro se): instructional error | Court: the instructional claim was unpreserved and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Langley, 363 Or 482 (Or. 2019) (treated ORS 14.210 for-cause motion on the merits despite timeliness objections under ORS 14.260)
- Hanson v. Dept. of Rev., 294 Or 23 (Or. 1982) (distinguishes ORS 14.210 for-cause scheme from ORS 14.250 for-prejudice scheme and discusses procedural limits)
- State v. Pena, 345 Or 198 (Or. 2008) (explains that ORS 14.250 motions based on subjective belief of bias are strictly constrained by statutory procedural rules)
- Straub v. State of Oregon et al., 121 Or 451 (Or. 1927) (supports liberal construction of judge-disqualification statutes to protect fair trials)
- State v. Barone, 329 Or 210 (Or. 1999) (analogizes strict enforcement of statutory limits on juror challenges to statutory limits on judge-disqualification procedures)
- State ex rel. Oliver v. Crookham, 302 Or 533 (Or. 1987) (holds the public has no right to have a particular judge preside over a case)