Find Legal Information

Filed: May 27, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff,

v.

IVEY WAYNE BARRETT,

Defendant.

LINDA DIANE BARRETT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OREGON
and IVEY WAYNE BARRETT,

Respondents.

(CC D110426M; SC S059423)

On interlocutory appeal pursuant to ORS 147.537.*

Argued and submitted May 19, 2011.

Janine Robben, Oregon Crime Victims Law Center, Portland, argued the cause and filed the memorandum for appellant.

Gregory A. Rios, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent State of Oregon. With him on the response were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Eric R. Johansen, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, argued the cause for defendant-respondent Ivey Wayne Barrett. With him on the response was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender.

Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Durham, Kistler, Walters, Linder, and Landau, Justices.**

DE MUNIZ, C. J.

The order of the circuit court is reversed, defendant's sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing.

*On appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Rick Knapp, Judge.

**Balmer, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

DE MUNIZ, C. J.

Appellant is the victim of the crime of stalking, a Class A misdemeanor. ORS 163.732(2)(a). The trial court concluded that, in the criminal proceeding against defendant, the perpetrator of the crime, the state violated the victim's rights as a crime victim under the Oregon Constitution. However, the trial court held that neither the Oregon Constitution nor the Oregon statutes provided a remedy for the violation. Pursuant to ORS 147.537, the victim filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying the victim a remedy. We reverse and remand.

We begin with a brief discussion of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. In 1999, the voters enacted Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, granting certain rights to crime victims. As applicable to this case, that provision states:

"To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to justice, to ensure crime victims a meaningful role in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, to accord crime victims due dignity and respect and to ensure that criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings are conducted to seek the truth as to the defendant's innocence or guilt, and also to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants in the course and conduct of criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings, the following rights are hereby granted to victims in all prosecutions for crimes and in juvenile court delinquency proceedings:

"(a) The right to be present at and, upon specific request, to be informed in advance of any critical stage of the proceedings held in open court when the defendant will be present, and to be heard at the pretrial release hearing and the sentencing or juvenile court delinquency disposition[.]"

Or Const, Art I,