State v. Savastano
309 P.3d 1083
Or.2013Background
- Defendant allegedly embezzled more than $200,000 from her employer over 16 months, with the prosecutor aggregating acts by month for indictment.
- Prosecutor charged 16 counts of theft (10 first-degree aggravated theft, 6 first-degree theft) based on monthly aggregation, lacking a formal office policy for aggregation.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Article I, section 20, arguing absence of a coherent, systematic policy governing aggregation decisions.
- Trial court denied the motion; defendant entered a conditional guilty plea; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
- Oregon Supreme Court overruled Freeland, held Article I, §20 applies to prosecutorial charging decisions, and authoritatively adopted a Clark-based framework with a Priest-based historical analysis.
- Court affirmed circuit court and reversed Court of Appeals, concluding there was a rational basis for monthly aggregation and no need for a formal policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article I, §20 apply to charging decisions by prosecutors? | Savastano: applies to prosecutorial charging decisions. | State: Freeland goes beyond text/history; limit to legislature and economic privileges. | Yes; §20 applies to prosecutorial charging decisions. |
| Should Freeland be overruled and Priest methodology applied to interpret §20? | Savastano: Freeland overruled; require coherent, systematic policy. | State: Freeland correct; apply restrictive standard; no need to overrule. | Overruled Freeland; return to Clark-based approach with rational basis standard. |
| What standard governs executive decisions under §20 after overruling Freeland? | Savastano: require coherent, systematic policy for all decisions. | State: rational explanation suffices; need not be policy-based. | A rational explanation suffices; no requirement for a comprehensive policy. |
| Was the prosecutor's monthly aggregation of thefts rational and permissible in this case? | Savastano: aggregation arbitrary due to lack of policy; burdens defendant. | State: aggregation by month aids jury clarity and is rationally related to task. | Yes; aggregation by month had a rational basis and satisfied §20. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State, 291 Or. 231 (1981) (no forbidden denial without legitimate reason; availability of procedures evaluated case-by-case)
- Freeland v. Multnomah County, 295 Or. 367 (1981) (introduced 'coherent, systematic policy' requirement for prosecutorial discretion)
- White v. Holman, 44 Or. 180 (1904) (board cannot grant monopoly inconsistent with Article I, §20)
- Monroe v. Withycombe, 84 Or. 338 (1917) (common-right rights and prohibiting exclusive monopolies)
- Eagle Cliff Fishing Co. v. McGowan, 70 Or. 1 (1914) (public rights may not be granted exclusively without legitimate basis)
- Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co., 51 Or. 237 (1907) (monopolies in resource access violate §20)
- Altschul v. State, 72 Or. 591 (1914) (sailor exemption example under §20)
- Cory v. State, 204 Or. 235 (1955) (habits of charging discretion; limited persuasive value for modern §20)
- Farrar v. State, 309 Or. 132 (1990) (plea-bargaining decisions may be rational and consistent with statutory factors)
- Buchholz v. State, 309 Or. 442 (1990) (statutory criteria can supply coherent standards for prosecutorial decisions)
- McDonnell v. State, 313 Or. 478 (1992) (rational grounds for prosecutorial decisions in plea context)
- Reynolds v. State, 289 Or. 533 (1980) (application of §20 to prosecutorial charging decisions)
- Edmonson v. State, 291 Or. 251 (1981) (Clark-based framework for permissible charging discretion)
- Pirkey v. State, 203 Or. 697 (1955) (historical context for equal privileges and immunities)