State v. Middlekauff
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: December 18, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DARRELL KELLY MIDDLEKAUFF, Defendant-Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 06FE1899ST A148871 Stephen N. Tiktin, Judge. Submitted on September 30, 2013. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Marc D. Brown, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Erin C. Lagesen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Duncan, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated murder, seven counts 3 of second-degree sexual abuse, and seven counts of delivery of methamphetamine to a 4 minor. On appeal, defendant advances five assignments of error, but we write to address 5 only his second assignment of error. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in 6 admitting certain materials in an envelope marked "legal mail" because, according to 7 defendant, those materials were protected under attorney-client privilege. See OEC 8 503(2) ("A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person 9 from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the 10 11 rendition of professional legal services to the client[.]"). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in 12 admitting the contents of the envelope into evidence. During the state's case-in-chief, the 13 court overruled defendant's privilege-related objection to the evidence on the ground that, 14 in the course of pretrial litigation, defendant had raised and then withdrawn the same 15 privilege argument, and the case proceeded with the understanding that defendant was no 16 longer objecting to the admission of the evidence on the basis of attorney-client privilege. 17 The record is consistent with the trial court's understanding of the procedural history of 18 the case; as such, the court did not err in denying defendant's subsequent attempt to 19 relitigate his previously withdrawn privilege argument during the course of the trial. 20 Affirmed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
