State v. Washington
264 P.3d 176
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Ronald T. Washington was convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine, a Class C felony under ORS 475.884(2).
- Multnomah County DA policy allows treating certain Class C nonperson felonies as Class A misdemeanors under ORS 161.570(2) with written guidelines and uniform application.
- Policy adopted in 2008 creates an NLCEP list and constraints that can keep possession cases with residue quantities as felonies or designate them for misdemeanor treatment.
- In this case, defendant was excluded from misdemeanor treatment because his name appeared on the NLCEP master list; his extensive criminal history would have disqualified him regardless of NLCEP.
- Defendant challenged the policy under Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing it was ad hoc and approached charging discretion without coherent criteria; the trial court and the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed these challenges.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the policy as constitutional, holding that NLCEP criteria and the criminal-history review provide coherent, uniform criteria and do not violate due process or equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NLCEP-list exclusion violate Article I, section 20? | Washington argues the NLCEP list creates unlawful discrimination without coherent policy. | State asserts NLCEP provides uniform, non-arbitrary criteria. | No; NLCEP-based charging is constitutional. |
| Does use of NLCEP or criminal history in charging decisions violate due process? | Washington contends the process risks erroneous deprivation without safeguards. | State argues procedures and review mitigate errors; data are objective. | No; due process satisfied given available review and safeguards. |
| Is the discretionary aspect of the policy coherent and uniformly applied? | Washington contends discretionary review leads to ad hoc outcomes. | Policy requires senior deputy review and consistent enforcement. | Yes; discretionary elements are coherent and consistently applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Savastano, 243 Or.App. 584 (Or. App. 2011) (discrimination and prosecutorial charging discretion under Article I, §20)
- Freeland, 295 Or. 367 (Or. 1983) (ad hoc distribution of burdens violates equal protection in charging)
- McDonnell, 313 Or. 478 (Or. 1992) (prosecutorial charging decisions; duty to apply criteria)
- Buchholz, 309 Or. 442 (Or. 1990) (same; selective charging discretion)
- Farrar, 309 Or. 132 (Or. 1990) (charges for murder vs. felony murder; discretionary charging)
- Reynolds, 289 Or. 533 (Or. 1980) (charging decisions in murder cases; criteria requirement)
- Bruner, 299 Or. 262 (Or. 1985) (criteria and enforcement in municipal actions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process balancing test for procedural safeguards)