Skip to main content
Andy Simrin

Andy Simrin’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • State v. Davis

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Oct 02, 2003
    Outcome:
    conviction for murder reversed
    Description:
    The sole factual dispute in this case was whether the defendant killed the alleged victim or whether she committed suicide. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction for murder, because the jury had not been allowed to consider evidence that she had repeatedly threatened to commit suicide. This case is Oregon's most frequently cited case for determining when an evidentiary error in a trial requires reversal.
  • Bollinger v. Board of Parole

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Dec 09, 1999
    Outcome:
    parole board order reversed
    Description:
    The order releasing the inmate onto parole was reversed, because the inmate had the right to refuse an order granting parole. Instead, he was entitled to remain a few weeks longer in prison in order to avoid a lengthy term of parole.
  • Engweiler v. Cook

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Outcome:
    Department of Corrections order clarified
    Description:
    The inmate in this case had been sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that, once the Board of Parole established a prison term for the inmate, the Department of Corrections would be required to allow him to earn good time.
  • State v. Idol

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Apr 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    conviction for drug possession reversed
    Description:
    The defendant in this case was stopped for a traffic infraction and consented to a search. The police officer found what he described as “a used meth pipe and a bag with methamphetamine” in the defendant's pocket. Although a lab report indicated that the substance was methamphetamine, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's conviction, because admitting the lab report into evidence without any testimony from the criminalist violated the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
  • Ornelas v. Ornelas

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Outcome:
    judgment reversed
    Description:
    In this divorce case, the wife had received a ring as a gift from her mother before she got married, but she did not realize that the 3-carat diamond in the ring was real until after she was married. Later, when the couple divorced, the trial judge awarded her husband half of the value of ring, because the couple had used money from their joint checking account to put the diamond into a new setting. The judge also ordered the wife to pay $27,000 in attorney fees to her ex-husband. The Court of Appeals ruled that the wife was entitled to the entire value of the ring and that her ex-husband was not entitled to an award of attorney fees.
  • Patterson v. Freeman

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    May 23, 2007
    Outcome:
    judgment reversed
    Description:
    In this case, a prison inmate filed a frivolous lawsuit against his former fiancee and her mother. The lawsuit was quickly dismissed, but the trial judge refused to award attorney fees to the former fiancee and her mother. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the order that denied them their attorney fees, ruling that they had done everything they needed to do to justify an award of attorney fees in successfully defending against a frivolous lawsuit.
  • State v. Fry

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Outcome:
    convictions reversed
    Description:
    In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed three of the defendant's four convictions, even though he had confessed to all four crimes, and the confession was properly admitted into evidence. The Court of Appeals held that, because there was no evidence other than the uncorroborated confession for the three crimes, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain convictions for those charges.
  • State v. Fuller

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Feb 17, 1999
    Outcome:
    conviction for drug possession reversed
    Description:
    The defendant's live-in girlfriend allowed police to search the defendant's nightstand, which he generally kept locked. The officer found what appeared to be marijuana in a drawer in the nightstand. The defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, because his girlfriend did not have actual authority to consent to a search of his nightstand, so his motion to suppress should have been granted.
  • Wilson v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 461 (2010)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Outcome:
    Parole Board order in double aggravated murder case reversed
    Description:
    The petitioner was convicted of two aggravated murders he committed at the age of 15, and the trial court imposed consecutive life sentences, each with a 30-year minimum period of confinement. Twenty years later, the Board of Parole determined that he was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time. Overruling its previous decision in Norris v. Board of Parole, 331 Or 194, 13 P3d 104 (2000), the Oregon Supreme Court held that the rehabilitation finding applies to both sentences, overrides both minimum periods of confinement and requires the Board to set an initial release date under the parole matrix.
  • Kincek v. Hall, 217 Or App 227, 175 P3d 496 (2007)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Outcome:
    Conviction for attempted murder reversed
    Description:
    The petitioner's conviction for attempted murder was set aside in this post-conviction proceeding because the petitioner's original trial attorney failed to call a psychologist as an expert witness to answer hypothetical questions that could have assisted the jury in determining whether the petitioner intended to kill the victim when he threatened her.