green
Positive treatment
Trending · 71 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
“a criminal defendant cannot be found guilty but insane if he has not asserted that affirmative defense.”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. HARBICK
a criminal defendant cannot be found guilty but insane if he has not asserted that affirmative defense.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ramirez v. State
ny claim that a petitioner fails to include in the original or amended petition is waived.
discussed
Cited "see"
Horseman v. Cain
See Pinnell v. Palmateer, 200 Or App 303, 333-34 , 114 P3d 515 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (explaining that “the alle- gations in a post-conviction petition limit the issues before the court, and any claim that a petitioner fails to include in the original or amended petition is waived,” such that even “plain error” review is unavailable).
discussed
Cited "see"
BP West Coast Products, LLP v. Oregon Department of Justice
See Morsman v. City of Madras, 203 Or App 546, 561-62 , 126 P3d 6 , rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (examining other provisions in the same chapter in which the provision at issue was codified to provide context).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hale v. Belleque
Any argument that is not made to the post-conviction court in support of a claim will not be considered on appeal. 255 Or App at 660 ; see Pratt v. Armenakis, 199 Or App 448, 453-55 , 112 P3d 371 , adh’d, to on recons, 201 Or App 217 , 118 P3d 821 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (court will not consider new substantive claim raised for first time on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. P. F.
As this Court has said, the use of shackles at trial affronts the dignity and decorum of judi- cial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 631 , 125 S Ct 2007 , 161 L Ed 2d 953 (2005) (internal quotation marks and brackets omit- ted); see also State v. Bates, 203 Or App 245, 251 , 125 P3d 42 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (noting, in the crimi- nal context, that shackling can impinge on “the dignity of judicial proceedings” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. P. F.
As this Court has said, the use of shackles at trial affronts the dignity and decorum of judi- cial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622, 631 , 125 S Ct 2007 , 161 L Ed 2d 953 (2005) (internal quotation marks and brackets omit- ted); see also State v. Bates, 203 Or App 245, 251 , 125 P3d 42 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (noting, in the crimi- nal context, that shackling can impinge on “the dignity of judicial proceedings” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McCright
See, e.g., State v. Bates, 203 Or App 245, 250-54 , 125 P3d 42 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Snow
See, e.g., Department of Justice v. Spring, 201 Or App 367, 373 , 120 P3d 1 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 483 (2006) (statute authorizing DNA testing to establish paternity adequately limited discretion where it required every person who denied paternity to submit to a test); Coleman, 196 Or App at 130 (police waiting room policy adequately limited discretion where it required “every person” to be searched and prohibited searches of closed containers); Weber, 184 Or App at 436-37 (school drug testing policy adequately limited discretion where students were selected randomly and testing procedure…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
MARTINEZ.
v.
MARTINEZ.
S53285.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Apr 25, 2006.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Petition for review denied.