Opinion ID: 836418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Constitutionality of Oregon's Death Penalty Scheme

Text: Finally, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his omnibus motion to dismiss the penalty-phase proceeding, in which he asserted that Oregon's death penalty scheme is unconstitutional for various reasons. Many of the arguments set out in the motion were addressed by this court in Simonsen I and, thus, are the law of the case. See Koch, 274 Or. at 512, 547 P.2d 589 (discussing the doctrine). The remaining arguments either were not preserved or have been rejected by this court in Montez I, 309 Or. 564, 789 P.2d 1352, Wagner, 309 Or. 5, 786 P.2d 93, State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47, 880 P.2d 431 (1994), Moore, 324 Or. 396, 927 P.2d 1073, State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343, 927 P.2d 64 (1996) ( Montez II ), State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or. 597, 932 P.2d 1145 (1997), State v. Moen, 309 Or. 45, 786 P.2d 111 (1990), or State v. Guzek, 310 Or. 299, 797 P.2d 1031 (1990).