Title: State v. Dominguez-Coronado
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S056256
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 2008

FILED: October 23, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent on Review, 
v.
FERNANDO DOMINGUEZ-CORONADO, 
Petitioner on Review. 
(CC 04C50555;
CA A128779; SC S056256)
STATE OF OREGON, 
Respondent on Review, 
v.
MARC MEALEY HOLCOMB, 
Petitioner on Review.
(CC 99122871;
CA A116966; SC S055025)
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent on Review, 
v.
JESS MONRO WATTS,
aka, Mark Monro Rosenthaw, 
Petitioner on Review. 
(CC C040170CR; CA A128644 (Control)
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent on Review, 
v.
MARK MONRO ROSENTHAW,
aka, Jess Monro Watts,
Petitioner on Review. 
(CC C0402446CR; CA A128645; SC S55324)
(Cases consolidated for opinion)
En Banc
On petitions for review filed (S056256) July 9, 2008;* (S055025) July 15, 2008;** (S055324);
July 15, 2008.***
Meredith Allen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the petition for review for
petitioner Dominguez-Coronado.  With her on the petition was Peter Gartlan,
Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
Eric Johansen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the petitions for review
for petitioners Holcomb, Watts and Rosenthaw.  With him on the petition was
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
No appearance contra.
PER CURIAM
Petitions for review are denied.
Gillette, J., concurred and filed an opinion, in which Walters, J., joined.
*Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Albin W. Norblad III, Judge. 219 Or App 315,
182 P3d 322 (2008).
**Order of the presiding judge denying petition for reconsideration dated May 21, 2008.
***Order of the presiding judge denying petition for reconsideration dated April 23,
2008.
GILLETTE, J., concurring.
The court today denies petitions for
review in three cases, State v. Dominguez-Coronado, 219 Or App 315, 182
P3d 322 (2008), State v. Holcomb, order
of the presiding judge denying petition for reconsideration dated May 21, 2008,
and State v. Watts, order of the
presiding judge denying petition for reconsideration dated April 23, 2008. 
I concur in those decisions, but write separately to call to the attention of
the Court of Appeals a concern that that court may be misinterpreting the scope
of its authority to reconsider its decisions.
Each of these three cases involved a criminal
defendant's request to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the court's earlier
decision in each defendant's case.  Reconsideration of a decision by the Court
of Appeals is governed by Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure (ORAP) 6.25, which
provides in part:
"(1) * * * A party seeking reconsideration
of a decision of the Court of Appeals shall file a petition for
reconsideration.  A petition for reconsideration shall be based on one or more
of these contentions:
"* * * * *
"(d) a claim that there has been a change
in the statutes or case law since the Court of Appeals' decision[.]"
Each defendant's petition for
reconsideration arose out of essentially parallel facts.  Each had been charged
with offenses, proof of which involved (in part) evidence of the result of
scientific tests.  In each case, the state had offered the evidence through a
laboratory report prepared by a criminalist; the criminalist did not testify. 
In no case did the defendant object at the time to that procedure.  Each
defendant was convicted.  Each appealed to the Court of Appeals.  None made any
issue of the laboratory reports being admitted without supporting testimony
from a criminalist.  The Court of Appeals affirmed on each appeal.
Shortly after the appeals were
decided, and while petitions for review in each case were pending before this
court, this court issued its opinion in State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624,
157 P3d 216 (2007), in which the court held that a trial court's admission of a
laboratory report without requiring the state to produce at trial the
criminalist who prepared the report violated a defendant's right to confront
witnesses against him or her under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon
Constitution.(1) 
Id. at 631-32.  Thereafter, each of the present petitioners sought
reconsideration by the Court of Appeals under ORAP 6.25(1)(d), asserting that
the court should reconsider each case and hold that there had been error in
each under Birchfield.
The Court of Appeals denied
reconsideration in each of the three cases.  It stated its rationale for denial
of reconsideration in Dominguez-Coronado:(2)
"In this case, defendant contends that his
petition for reconsideration is supported by a 'change in the * * * case law,'
namely, the Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield * * *.  A 'change in
the * * * case law,' however, authorizes reconsideration of a prior opinion
of this court on matters that already have been put before it.  It does not
provide a basis for asserting an entirely new claim of error not previously
asserted."
Dominguez-Coronado, 219 Or App at 318 (emphasis and
ellipsis in original).  The present petitions for review followed.
For my part, I do not find justification
in either the text or context of ORAP 6.25(1) for the Court of Appeals' conclusion
that the alleged error that is the basis for the petition for reconsideration must
be one that "already [has] been put before" the Court of Appeals.  The
text of ORAP 6.25(1) provides, without limitation, for "reconsideration of
a decision of the Court of Appeals."  (Emphasis added.)   In my
view, nothing in that wording confines the Court of Appeals' reconsideration to
arguments that already had been made to that court, but which had acquired new
legitimacy due to changes in statute or case law.  See Kentner v. Gulf Ins.
Co., 298 Or 69, 75, 689 P2d 955 (1984) (court chose to reconsider prior
opinion on basis of moving party's argument never advanced until petition for
reconsideration).  It thus appears to me that the Court of Appeals' view that
there is no legal basis for reconsidering these defendants' petitions for
review is probably incorrect.
That said, however, I concur with
this court's choice not to allow any of the three petitions for review.  I take
that view because, unlike the situation in Birchfield (the case on which
the petitioners rely), none of the petitioners in the three cases now before us
objected to the admissibility of the laboratory report as hearsay or notified
the state that he wanted the state to produce the criminalist at trial.  Birchfield
did not obviate those requirements.  It follows that remand of these cases to
the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, when good reason exists for that
court to deny reconsideration, would be asking that court to make an
unwarranted expenditure of its precious judicial time.
I concur.  
Walters, J., joins in this concurring
opinion.
1. Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have
the right * * * to meet the witnesses face to face[.]"
2. The court denied reconsideration in each of the other cases in orders
citing Dominguez-Coronado.