266 P.3d 176
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Tiffany Savastano was charged in Oregon with multiple theft-related counts for embezzling from her employer during 2005–2006.
- The indictment aggregated thefts into counts by month, including 10 counts of first-degree aggravated theft and 6 counts of first-degree theft.
- The prosecutor explained aggregation was chosen to provide a clear organizational outline for the jury.
- Savastano argued there was no consistent, systematic policy governing aggregation, violating Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.
- The panel in Savastano 243 Or.App. 584 reversed and remanded, holding lack of a systematic policy required dismissal or a properly structured aggregation policy.
- On reconsideration, the court clarifies that the disposition remains reversal and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregation of thefts requires a consistent policy. | Savastano: no consistent policy; aggregation violates the constitution. | State: prosecutor discretion allows aggregation without a rigid policy. | Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
| What remedy should follow if aggregation policy is not systematic. | Savastano: dismissal or proper aggregation may be required. | State: discretion allows alternative, not necessarily dismissal. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Savastano, 243 Or.App. 584 (2011) (raised issues of aggregation policy under ORS 164.115(5) and constitutional safeguards; reversed and remanded)