State of Oregon v. Hess
Oregon Court of Appeals
273 Or. App. 26, 359 P.3d 288 (2015)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Terrianne Hess (defendant) owned 38 cats in her duplex home. Animal control officials received a complaint about the living conditions of the cats. Upon entry to the home, officials observed that the cats were living in unsanitary conditions, underfed, and infested with fleas. The officials further discovered seven dead cats, which had succumbed to the effects of anemia caused by severe flea infestations. The State of Oregon (plaintiff) charged Hess with separate counts of first-degree animal neglect for the dead cats and second-degree animal neglect for the living cats. Prior to trial, the defense offered the proposed testimony of a psychologist who opined that Hess suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD), which affected her ability to make rational decisions and made her feel compelled to acquire more cats than to whom she could reasonably provide care. The trial court excluded the testimony, finding it did not raise a legal defense as it did not establish that Hess acted involuntarily. After trial, the defense sought to tender a jury instruction on the voluntary-act requirement to impose criminal liability. The trial court refused the instruction, holding that the case involved Hess’s omissions rather than an involuntary act, and thus would be more confusing than helpful to the jury. The jury convicted Hess on all 45 counts. On appeal, Hess argued that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the psychologist and refusing to give the proposed jury instruction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Armstrong, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.