Rice v. Myers

952 P.2d 533, 326 Or. 419, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 20
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 12, 1998
DocketSC S44792; SC S44793
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 952 P.2d 533 (Rice v. Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rice v. Myers, 952 P.2d 533, 326 Or. 419, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 20 (Or. 1998).

Opinion

*421 VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

In this original ballot title proceeding, petitioner challenges the ballot titles for two proposed initiative measures, Measures 53 and 54, pertaining to criminal sentencing. We consolidated the petitions for argument and opinion. Petitioner timely submitted comments about the Attorney General’s proposed ballot titles. ORS 250.067(1). The Attorney General declined to modify the ballot titles as requested by petitioner and, instead, certified the titles. ORS 250.067(2). Petitioner seeks review. ORS 250.085(2). We review the titles for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2) 1 Applying that standard, we determine that both ballot titles should be modified.

Under Measures 53 and 54, first-time “major crimes” offenders receive minimum 14- and 18-month sentences, respectively. The measures increase sentences for repeat “major crimes” offenders. Measure 53 imposes proportionally increased sentences of one to three years for repeat offenders; Measure 54 imposes increased sentences of two to six years. Measure 53 also provides for the inclusion of prior juvenile adjudications for calculating “repeat offender” status. Measure 54 abolishes the power of sentencing courts to accord “first-time offender” treatment under ORS 161.610(5) to offenders who use or threaten to use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

*422 For Measure 53, the Attorney General certified the following ballot title to the Secretary of State:

“INCREASES SENTENCES FOR PERSONS WITH PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR LISTED CRIMES
“RESULT OF YES’ VOTE: Yes’ vote increases sentences for certain convictions if person has prior convictions for listed crimes.
“RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote rejects increasing sentences if person has prior convictions for listed crimes.
“SUMMARY: Establishes minimum sentences for crimes listed as ‘major crimes.’ Provides one to three year proportionally increased sentences for major crimes, aggravated murder or murder if person has one to three prior convictions for major crime within past 10 years. Prior juvenile court adjudications involving major crimes apply to increase sentence. Treats prior conviction for driving under influence of intoxicants as major crime if current conviction is for criminally negligent homicide using vehicle. Prohibits temporary leave or other reduction in additional prison time imposed under measure.”

For Measure 54, the Attorney General certified the following ballot title:

“INCREASES SENTENCES FOR PERSONS WITH PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR LISTED CRIMES
“RESULT OF YES’ VOTE: Yes’ vote increases sentences for certain convictions if person has prior convictions for listed crimes.
“RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote rejects increasing sentences if person has prior convictions for listed crimes.
“SUMMARY: Establishes minimum sentences for crimes listed as ‘major crimes.’ Provides two to six year proportionally increased sentences for major crimes, aggravated murder or murder if person has one to three prior adult convictions or juvenile adjudications for major crime within past 10 years. Eliminates existing possible first offender treatment for major crime using firearm. Treats prior conviction for driving under influence of intoxicants *423 as major crime if current conviction is for criminally negligent homicide using vehicle. Prohibits temporary leave, other reduction in additional prison time.”

Because petitioner makes the same arguments with regard to both Measure 53 and 54, we use the term “measure” in this opinion to refer to both measures, unless otherwise indicated.

CAPTION

Petitioner contends that the Attorney General’s caption fails to identify the subject matter of the proposed measure, as required by ORS 250.035(2)(a). He argues that the caption is misleading, because it suggests that the proposed initiatives will create enhanced sentencing for repeat offenders of major crimes when, in fact, the sentencing guidelines and other sentencing schemes already provide for sentencing enhancement for prior criminal history. He also argues that the caption gives a false impression that the measure would increase sentences only for repeat offenders when, in fact, they also would affect the sentences of first-time offenders.

When a ballot title caption purports to make a representation regarding the present state of the law, the representation must not be misleading. By stating that the measure “increases sentences” for persons with prior convictions for listed crimes, the Attorney General’s proposed caption purports to describe how existing law will change with regard to its treatment of persons with prior convictions. Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, however, the phrase is not inaccurate or misleading. Repeat offenders currently may receive enhanced sentences. Under the new measure, such persons would receive one to three (or two to six) years in prison in addition to the enhanced sentences that they would receive under existing sentencing guidelines and other sentencing schemes. The Attorney General’s certified caption accurately reflects that aspect of the measure.

In answer to petitioner’s second argument, however, we agree that the Attorney General’s certified caption could leave a reasonable reader with the misleading impression that the measure applies only to repeat offenders. To the contrary, Measure 53 imposes a minimum 14-month sentence, and Measure 54 imposes a minimum 18-month sentence, on *424 persons who have never been convicted of a “major crime.” The Attorney General’s caption is under-inclusive. By describing the impact of the measure on one class of offenders, while excluding any reference to another class of offenders, the Attorney General’s certified caption misleads the voters as to the full breadth of the measure and fails reasonably to identify the subject matter of the measure. See, e.g., Witt v. Kulongoski, 319 Or 7, 872 P2d 14 (1994) (illustrating this court’s application of the foregoing principle in modifying an under-inclusive and, therefore, inadequate ballot title caption).

Accordingly, we modify the caption as follows:

CHANGES MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR LISTED CRIMES, INCLUDING CERTAIN REPEAT OFFENSES

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

Related

Novick v. Myers
32 P.3d 890 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2001)
Dirks v. Myers
993 P.2d 808 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
952 P.2d 533, 326 Or. 419, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-myers-or-1998.