I represent in a post-conviction relief appeal a fellow who was convicted of sex offenses ten years ago. The victim of the offenses has since come forward to deny that my client committed the offenses; rather, she was persuaded to accuse my client by a relative who disliked my client.
In the post-conviction trial court, the state moved to dismiss, arguing that post-conviction relief is not available for a claim of actual innocence. The trial court agreed and dismissed, and I appealed.
In front of the Oregon Court of Appeals, the state sought summary affirmance (more or less as a dismissal of the appeal), again arguing that actual innocence is not a claim available in post-conviction relief.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has just denied the summary affirmance motion and ruled that the case can go forward. The court relied on Anderson v. Gladden, 234 Ore. 614, 626, 383 P.2d 986 (1963), in which the Oregon Supreme Court left open the question “whether newly-discovered evidence can ever give rise to any kind of common-law post-conviction relief.”
Although the Court of Appeals did not decide the question, it decided that there is a substantial question of law whether relief is available. What showing I will need to make to win remains undecided by any recent Oregon decisions.
