The Oregon Supreme Court issued a split decision November 25, 2025, reversing the convictions of Anthony Richard Cortes and ordering his case remanded to Douglas County Circuit Court for further proceedings. The ruling overturned both the circuit court judgments and a subsequent Court of Appeals decision that had previously upheld the convictions.
The case, argued before the court en banc on April 17, 2025, involved two separate criminal matters from 2022 against Cortes, who is described in court documents as houseless. The central legal issue appears to have involved Oregon's probation conditions regarding weapon possession, specifically whether a knife constituted a prohibited weapon under state law.
According to court documents, Cortes was on probation and subject to general probation conditions under Oregon law, which include a requirement that probationers "not possess weapons, firearms or dangerous animals" under ORS 137.540(1)(j). The violation allegedly occurred when Cortes reported to his probation officer with a knife in his backpack, prompting a probation violation report.
The case record indicates this weapons possession issue became the subject of contested legal interpretation. Justice James, writing for the majority, opened the court's opinion with a literary reference to Shakespeare's Macbeth, specifically the famous "dagger" soliloquy where Macbeth questions whether what he sees before him is actually a weapon. James wrote, "As this case illustrates, the answer to that question is not always obvious," suggesting the court grappled with fundamental questions about what constitutes a weapon under Oregon probation law.
The original criminal charges were filed in Douglas County Circuit Court under case numbers CC 22CR10579 and CC 22CR27721, with Judge Robert B. Johnson presiding. After Cortes was convicted, he appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's decisions in a ruling cited as 332 Or App 685, 549 P3d 618 (2024).
Cortes then petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review, represented by the Oregon Public Defense Commission. Deputy Public Defender Francis C. Gieringer argued the case and filed briefs on behalf of Cortes, with assistance from Chief Defender Ernest G. Lannet of the Criminal Appellate Section.
The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Koch, who argued the case alongside Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The state had sought to uphold the convictions and the Court of Appeals ruling.
The Supreme Court's reversal represents a significant victory for Cortes and potentially establishes new precedent regarding weapon possession by individuals on probation. However, the decision was not unanimous. Justices Bushong and Garrett filed a dissenting opinion, indicating substantial disagreement among the court about the proper interpretation of Oregon's probation weapon restrictions.
The split decision suggests the case involved complex legal questions that divided Oregon's highest court. The dissent by two justices indicates this was not a straightforward legal interpretation but rather involved nuanced questions about statutory construction, constitutional rights, or both.
For Cortes, who has been navigating the criminal justice system since 2022, the Supreme Court victory means his convictions have been overturned. However, the remand to circuit court means the case is not concluded. The circuit court will now conduct further proceedings, which could include new hearings, plea negotiations, or potentially a new trial depending on how prosecutors choose to proceed.
The case highlights ongoing legal challenges faced by individuals experiencing homelessness who become involved in the criminal justice system. The fact that Cortes' housing status was specifically noted in court documents suggests it may have been relevant to the legal arguments or the court's analysis.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case en banc - meaning all justices participated rather than a smaller panel - indicates the court viewed the legal questions as particularly important or likely to affect future cases. En banc review is typically reserved for cases involving significant legal issues that require the full court's attention.
The case also illustrates the multi-layered nature of Oregon's appellate system, with Cortes progressing from circuit court through the Court of Appeals before ultimately prevailing at the state's highest court. This progression demonstrates the importance of appellate review in ensuring proper application of state law.
With the case now remanded to Douglas County Circuit Court, legal observers will be watching to see how prosecutors proceed and whether the Supreme Court's reasoning will influence similar cases involving probation conditions and weapon possession. The split decision suggests this area of law may continue to evolve through future litigation.