Marsh v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Marsh v. Oregon State Penitentiary

535 P.2d 596, 21 Or. App. 411, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1413

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 12, 1975

DocketNo. 11-74-005, No. 4031

StatusPublished

This text of 535 P.2d 596 (Marsh v. Oregon State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marsh v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 535 P.2d 596, 21 Or. App. 411, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1413 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

FORT, J.

In this disciplinary review appeal (ORS 421.195), petitioner was found by the Disciplinary Committee to have violated Rule 2, Major Disruptive Behavior, in that he flooded his cell. Petitioner contends there was no evidence to support the finding of the Disciplinary Committee. We disagree.

[412]*412There was evidence from Lieutenant Ridling, the officer who signed the Report of Violation of Institutional Rules, upon the basis of which petitioner was tried both in the form of a recording of his oral statement and in the form of a report at the hearing of a telephone report made by him to a member of the Disciplinary Committee who telephoned him for further information during the course of the hearing. No claim is made that the receipt of any of this evidence was in violation of ORS 421.190,

① nor of the Division procedures regulating and providing “for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same * *

Lieutenant Ridling testified:

“* # * I was standing in front of the Isolation side and saw water coming down the Isolation floor toward the front of the tier. The water came down to tier 1-102. Cpl. Cundiff turned the water —turned off the water to the quiet cells. * #

The presiding officer at the Disciplinary Committee' hearing also stated concerning the phone call made to Lieutenant Ridling:

“On * * * Major Disruptive Behavior, having to do with flooding the cell. We contacted Lt. Ridling to see what his opinion was, by phone. Lt. Ridling said that all six toilets were running.

Petitioner at the hearing denied the flooding of his cell. It is not contended that any other person was present in petitioner’s cell. It could have been reasonably inferred by the committee from the evi[413]*413dence that the flooding of the cells resulted from the deliberate running and overflowing of the toilets in each of the six cells, including the petitioner’s, as charged in the report.②

We think there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner flooded his cell.

Affirmed.

“Evidence may be received at disciplinary hearings even though inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure and the division shall establish procedures to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to afford the inmate a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing.” ORS 421.190.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FORT, J.

In this disciplinary review appeal (ORS 421.195), petitioner was found by the Disciplinary Committee to have violated Rule 2, Major Disruptive Behavior, in that he flooded his cell. Petitioner contends there was no evidence to support the finding of the Disciplinary Committee. We disagree.

[412]*412There was evidence from Lieutenant Ridling, the officer who signed the Report of Violation of Institutional Rules, upon the basis of which petitioner was tried both in the form of a recording of his oral statement and in the form of a report at the hearing of a telephone report made by him to a member of the Disciplinary Committee who telephoned him for further information during the course of the hearing. No claim is made that the receipt of any of this evidence was in violation of ORS 421.190,

① nor of the Division procedures regulating and providing “for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same * *

Lieutenant Ridling testified:

“* # * I was standing in front of the Isolation side and saw water coming down the Isolation floor toward the front of the tier. The water came down to tier 1-102. Cpl. Cundiff turned the water —turned off the water to the quiet cells. * #

The presiding officer at the Disciplinary Committee' hearing also stated concerning the phone call made to Lieutenant Ridling:

“On * * * Major Disruptive Behavior, having to do with flooding the cell. We contacted Lt. Ridling to see what his opinion was, by phone. Lt. Ridling said that all six toilets were running.

Petitioner at the hearing denied the flooding of his cell. It is not contended that any other person was present in petitioner’s cell. It could have been reasonably inferred by the committee from the evi[413]*413dence that the flooding of the cells resulted from the deliberate running and overflowing of the toilets in each of the six cells, including the petitioner’s, as charged in the report.②

We think there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner flooded his cell.

Affirmed.

“Evidence may be received at disciplinary hearings even though inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure and the division shall establish procedures to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to afford the inmate a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing.” ORS 421.190.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 P.2d 596, 21 Or. App. 411, 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack