The Oregon Supreme Court denied the state's petition for review in *State v. McGee* on January 29, 2026, effectively ending the state's attempt to challenge a Court of Appeals decision from 2025. The court also rejected defendant Menphrey Douglas McGee's contingent petition for review and his pro se supplemental petition.
The case, docketed as SC S072315, stems from multiple criminal charges filed in 2019 in Multnomah County Circuit Court under case numbers 19CR22915, 19CN03969, and 19CR58662. Judge Jerry B. Hodson presided over the original proceedings in the circuit court.
The state filed its petition for review on Oct. 24, 2025, seeking to overturn the Oregon Court of Appeals decision issued earlier that year. The appeals court had ruled in favor of McGee in a decision reported as 341 Or App 237, 572 P3d 1063 (2025). The Oregon Supreme Court considered the petition and held it under advisement following oral arguments on Jan. 6, 2026.
Assistant Attorney General Doug M. Petrina filed the state's petition, representing the prosecution alongside Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Interim Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Gutman. McGee was represented by Mark Kimbrell of North Current Legal, LLC, a Portland-based firm. McGee also filed his own supplemental petition pro se from Pendleton.
The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam opinion denying all petitions without detailed explanation. Chief Justice Flynn and Justices Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog, James, and Masih participated in the decision. Justice Bushong did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.
Justice Duncan filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Garrett and DeHoog, acknowledging the denial while noting that the state's petition raised "an important legal issue that the court should consider in an appropriate case." Justice James also filed a separate concurring opinion, though the content of both concurring opinions was not fully detailed in the available court documents.
The case's procedural history spans multiple years, beginning with the original criminal charges in 2019. The matter proceeded through the trial court system before reaching the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued its decision in 2025 under docket numbers A178091, A178092, and A177818, with A178091 serving as the controlling case.
While the specific nature of the criminal charges and the legal issues at stake were not detailed in the court's order, the case involved multiple felony or serious misdemeanor charges given the circuit court case numbers and the level of appellate review sought by both parties. The involvement of the Attorney General's office suggests the case raised significant legal questions warranting state-level prosecution resources.
The denial of review means the Court of Appeals decision stands as the final word on the legal issues presented. This outcome favors McGee, as the state was apparently seeking to reverse or modify the appeals court's ruling in its favor. The court's decision not to grant review suggests either that the legal issues did not warrant Supreme Court attention or that a majority of justices were satisfied with the appeals court's resolution of the matter.
Justice Duncan's concurring opinion hints that while this particular case may not have presented the ideal vehicle for addressing certain legal questions, similar issues may arise in future cases that would be more suitable for Supreme Court review. This suggests the court may be waiting for a case with a cleaner factual record or more developed legal arguments to address the underlying legal principles.
The timeline of the case reflects the typical pace of high-level criminal appeals. From the original 2019 charges through the 2025 Court of Appeals decision to the 2026 Supreme Court denial, the case consumed nearly seven years in the court system. This extended timeline is characteristic of complex criminal cases that raise novel legal questions warranting appellate review.
The involvement of multiple case numbers at the circuit court level suggests McGee faced charges across different criminal proceedings, possibly involving related conduct or separate incidents handled together for efficiency. The consolidation of these matters through the appellate process indicates their legal issues were sufficiently connected to warrant joint consideration.
With the Supreme Court's denial of review, McGee's legal victory at the Court of Appeals level is now final. The state has exhausted its appellate options, and barring any extraordinary circumstances, the case will not receive further judicial review. This conclusion provides certainty for both parties after years of litigation and appellate proceedings.