green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.1 score
“ppellate courts are required to affirm the trial court, notwithstanding evidential error, 337 whenever there is substantial and convincing evidence of guilt in a criminal case.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Orr
(2×)
My conclusion that communications falling within § 52-146q (c) (2) are neither confidential nor privileged also is supported by the majority of jurisdictions that have concluded that the duty to warn third parties about threatening statements made to a psychotherapist gives rise to an exception to the psychotherapist-client evidentiary privilege. 15 See San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Supe rior Court, 87 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 1091 , 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 476 (2001) (“[when] a patient is dangerous and disclosure of confidential communication is necessary to prevent harm, the psychotherapist-patient pri…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Davis
ppellate courts are required to affirm the trial court, notwithstanding evidential error, 337 whenever there is substantial and convincing evidence of guilt in a criminal case.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cable
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 229 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (as relevant to the emergency-aid exception, “the police are not required to accept a lay per- son’s determination of death,” as the officer “might be able to Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 467 (2026) 471 render lifesaving medical assistance to the victim”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cable
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 229 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (as relevant to the emergency-aid exception, “the police are not required to accept a lay per- son’s determination of death,” as the officer “might be able to Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 467 (2026) 471 render lifesaving medical assistance to the victim”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rose
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (to purge the taint under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show “(1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rose
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (to purge the taint under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show “(1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rose
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (to purge the taint under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show “(1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. DeJong
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986) (explaining that “[t]he inevitable discov- ery doctrine permits the prosecution to purge the taint of illegally obtained evidence by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, absent the illegality, by proper and pre- dictable police investigatory procedures”); see also id. at 227 (explaining that, “[i]n the case of a warrantless entry into premises,” the court should consider “the possibility, that, if police had not made the illegal ent…
discussed
Cited "see"
Wright v. L-3 Communications Corp.
See Giammario v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 203 N.J.Super. 356, 361 , 497 A.2d 199, 202 (App.Div.1985), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 336 , 508 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1791 , 90 L.Ed.2d 337 (1986); see also Sisler, 157 N.J. at 200 , 723 A.2d at 949 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Esposito v. Township of Edison
See generally Giammario v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 203 N.J.Super. 356, 361-363 , 497 A.2d 199 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 336 , 508 A.2d 212 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1791 , 90 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Correa
Ed. 2d 140 (1995); see United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S. Ct. 1793 , 90 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cleveland
Accord, United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 362 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Pollina v. United States, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 338 (1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1160 , 106 S.Ct. 2281 , 90 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986) (even though warrant issued for electronic surveillance did not include a specific crime as a possible violation, authorization could be inferred when judge authorizing extension of tap was made aware of material facts constituting or clearly relating to other offenses in application for extension); United States v. Gerena, 653 F.Supp. 974, 977-79 (D.Conn. 1987)…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pabon
See generally United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 403 (2d Cir. 1985) (Inferences to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt need not be “ineluctable.”), cer t. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986). 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Andrew Headley v. Lawrence Tilghman, Warden, Connecticut Correction Institution--Somers
See United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400-02 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) (holding that there was no error in admitting expert testimony regarding a typical drag buy, including the role of a “steerer,” where the accused’s defense *476 was that he was on scene but unaware of any drug transaction).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jackson
See United States v. Brown, 776 F. 2d 397, 401 (2nd Cir.1985), cert. den., 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed. 2d 339 (1986), another case upon which defendant relies.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Franks
See State v. Miller, 300 Or. 203 , 709 P.2d 225, 237-38 (1985) (interpreting similar language in statute creating psychotherapist-patient privilege), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jermaine Boney, United States of America v. Donald A. Holloman
(2×)
See United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986). 3 Still, it is part of the normal role of the expert not merely to describe patterns of conduct in the abstract, but to connect actions in a specific case to those patterns— sometimes even to the point of testifying that the defendant was involved in criminal conduct.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Stevens
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 229-30 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986) (police justified in making warrantless entry to render lifesaving assistance to victim and in seizing evidence, including victim’s body).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Moore
See State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kevin Schatzle
See United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 704 advisory committee’s note), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 765-66 (2d Cir.1984) (Newman, J., concurring), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 , 105 S.Ct. 1842 , 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfredo Diaz, Eradio Perez, and Jose Alfanso Riano
See United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, [ 475 U.S. 1141 ,] 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Giovanelli
See United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 362 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 338 (1986) (“authorization under 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (5) may be inferred when a judicial officer grants a continuation of the surveillance, even though the offense was not listed in the original order, so long as he was made aware of ‘material facts constituting or clearly relating to [the] other offenses' in the application for the continuance.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad Dawood Nusraty
However, mere presence at the scene of an aborted drug transfer cannot by itself support a conviction of conspiracy, United States v. Burgos, 579 F.2d 747, 749 (2d Cir.1978); see United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 403 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); Pedroza, 750 F.2d at 198 , for mere presence is not enough to prove knowing conspiratorial agreement, see United States v. Vilhotti, 452 F.2d 1186, 1189 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1041 , 92 S.Ct. 1314 , 31 L.Ed.2d 582 (1972), 406 U.S. 947 , 92 S.Ct. 2051 , 32 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SLSJ, LLC v. Kleban
See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400 (2d Cir. 1985) (“[T]he trial judge has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and his action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc., 599 F.2d 1126, 1138, n. 7 (2d Cir.1979) (“The broad discretion of the trial court to determine the qualifications of witnesses will not be disturbed unless its ruling was manifestly erroneous.”) (citation and internal quotati…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dean v. State
See, e.g., United States v. Scavo, 593 F.2d 837, 844 (8th Cir.1979) (bookmaker's statements "virtually incomprehensible to the layman, are fraught with meaning to a person familiar with gambling enterprises"); United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985, 991-92 (8th Cir.1977) (conversations conducted in the "peculiar argot of bookmakers" require expert testimony "to be intelligible to the district court"); see also United States v. *314 Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) (jury assisted by expert's description of "terms and p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Yevakpor
See also United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401-02 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) (finding no error in admitting expert testimony regarding a typical drug buy, including the role of a “steerer”, where the accused’s defense was that he was at the scene but unaware of any drug transaction); United States v. Pugliese, 712 F.2d 1574, 1582 (2d Cir.1983) (finding no error in admitting expert testimony as to quantity and purity of heroin); United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 761 (2d Cir.1984) (finding no error in admitting expert testimo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cardell
Compare State v. Mulholland, 132 Or App 399, 405 , 888 P2d 594 (1993), rev den 321 Or 284 (1995) (analyzing search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, for purposes of ORS 133.683), with State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 228-29 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986) (same, with respect to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wright
See, e.g., United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1394 (8th Cir.) (“Intervening weekends, holidays, and the unavailability of the issuing judge are satisfactory explanations for slight delays [7 days] in presenting wiretap recordings for sealing.”) (citing in part United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 362-63 (2nd Cir.) (“two-day intervening holiday, unavailability of issuing judge, and need to prepare paperwork provided adequate explanation for five-day delay”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 338 (1986)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1031 , 115 S.Ct. 610 (1994); …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Larson
(2×)
OEC 103(1). [3] This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is “little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985)[, cert den 475 US 1141 (1986)].’ ” This record contains no showing that defendant was prejudiced, either by the trial court’s failure to exercise discretion or by the ruling that the court made.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juan Fermin, Hector Fermin, and Freddy Fermin
Additionally, DEA agent Timothy Sullivan testified that the coded conversations involving Hector were narcotics related. 1 Though concern has previously been expressed about the use of expert testimony concerning ambiguous conduct to “carry the prosecution’s proof above the [sufficiency] line,” United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 766 (2d Cir.1984) (Newman, J., concurring), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 , 105 S.Ct. 1842 , 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985); see also United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 401 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); id. at 404…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Headley v. Tilgham
Accordingly, the Court held that such expert testimony must be limited to situations “where the subject matter of the testimony is beyond the ken of the average juror:” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 760 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Carson, 702 F.2d 351, 369 (2d Cir.) cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barkley
This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is “little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985) [, cert den 475 US 1141 (1986)].’ State v. Isom, 306 Or 587, 595-96 , 761 P2d 524 (1988). *429 “See also State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 56 , 828 P2d 1006 (1992) (Unis, J., dissenting) (explaining same); State v. Walton, 311 Or 223, 230-31 , 809 P2d 81 (1991) (describing constitutional basis for Oregon doctrine and contrasting…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Busby
(2×)
This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is `little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.' State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985) [ cert. den. 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) ]." Defendant's failure to place on the record what his trial testimony would have been has deprived this court of any basis for evaluating the gravity of the claimed error on which he relies. [6] Because the record made at trial, lacking any offer of proof, gives t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Keller
This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. ’ *286 State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985)[, cert den 475 US 1141 (1986)].” State v. Isom, supra, 306 Or at 595-96 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Phillips
This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.’ State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985)[, cert den 475 US 1141 (1986)].” State v. Isom, 306 Or 587, 595-96 , 761 P2d 524 (1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Peterson
See, e.g., State v. *129 Miller, 300 Or 203, 229 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Heintze
Smith, supra; see also State v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 291, 293 (N.D.) [failure to define “object” did not constitute obvious error], ce rt. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 337 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sonnie Davis v. Kevin Davis, United States of America v. Kevin Davis
United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 360-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 338 cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1160 , 106 S.Ct. 2281 , 90 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986) (finding no scienter requirement that defendants know they were obstructing a federal proceeding).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timothy Duane Arcoren v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Scavo, 593 F.2d 837, 844 (8th Cir.1979) (bookmaker’s statements “virtually incomprehensible to the layman, are fraught with meaning to a person familiar with gambling enterprises”); United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985, 991-92 (8th Cir.1977) (conversations conducted in the “peculiar argot of bookmakers” require expert testimony “to be intelligible to the district court”); see also United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) (jury assisted by expert’s description of �…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Walton
(2×)
This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.’ State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985).” In State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986), this court stated: “OEC 103(1) provides: ‘Evidential error is not presumed to be prejudicial.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peter J. Boissoneault
See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400-01 (2d Cir.1985) (testimony that defendant’s observed role in drug transaction was that of a “steer-er”), ce rt. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); Young, 745 F.2d at 760-61 (testimony that location frequented by defendants was a narcotics “shooting gallery” and that witnessed incident was a narcotics transaction); Carson, 702 F.2d at 369 (testimony that furtive activity appeared to be sales of narcotics); see also United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587, 591-92 (3d Cir.1989) (testimony characteri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alex Simmons
See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 776 F.2d 397, 400 (2d Cir.1985) (permissible for expert to testify that appellant acted as "steerer" in a narcotics sale), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 760-61 (2d Cir.1984) (permissible for expert to testify that, based on his observations, narcotics transaction had taken place), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 , 105 S.Ct. 1842 , 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985); Carson, 702 F.2d at 369-70 (same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bauman
State v. Hansen, supra; see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Portland v. Paulson
See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Haverluk
(2×)
State v. Kraft, supra ; State v. Janda, 397 N.W.2d 59, 70 (N.D.1986); Explanatory Note to Rule 52, N.D.R.Crim.P.; see also State v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 291, 293 (N.D.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1792 , 90 L.Ed.2d 337 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kraft
State v. Janda, 397 N.W.2d 59, 70 (N.D.1986); Explanatory Note to Rule 52, N.D.R.Crim.P.; see also State v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 291, 293 (N.D.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 5.Ct. 1792, 90 L.Ed.2d 337 (1986).
Moore
v.
Volkswagenwerk, A. G.
v.
Volkswagenwerk, A. G.
No. 85-1498.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 28, 1986.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.