green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.2 score
“vidence of other sexual contacts between a defendant and a particular victim offered to show the predisposition that the defendant had for that victim is relevant for a noncharacter purpose- that is, to show the sexual inclination of the defendant towards that victim.”
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp.
of course, we cannot supply language that the legislature has omitted.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Barber
acquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent or when he or she is informed that a search will occur regardless of whether consent is given.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Baughman
vidence of other sexual contacts between a defendant and a particular victim offered to show the predisposition that the defendant had for that victim is relevant for a noncharacter purpose- that is, to show the sexual inclination of the defendant towards that victim.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Olson
whether evidence of prior bad acts is relevant for a noncharacter purpose, and thus admissible under oec 404(3), is a question of law.
discussed
Cited "see"
Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.
See Murdoch v. SAIF, 223 Or App 144, 149-50, 194 P3d 854 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 361 (2009) (because the claimant’s diabetes made him unable to “mount as strong of a response” to trauma caused by other forces, and did not itself cause that trauma, it had merely rendered the claimant susceptible to an infection of his toe, and was not a contributing cause of the need for amputation of that digit).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Enemesio
See State v. Lennon, 225 Or App 318, 321 , 201 P3d 264 , rev allowed, 346 Or 361 (2009) (applying that presumption); Wilson, 111 Or App at 152 (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Primeaux
See State v. Bretches, 225 Or App 602 , 202 P3d 883 , rev den, 346 Or 361 (2009) (holding that where the defendant was told he was free to leave but continued to converse with the officer, his consent did not occur in the course of an illegal stop); see also State v. Peppard, 172 Or App 311 , 18 P3d 488 , vac’d, 332 Or 630 , 34 P3d 168 (2001) (holding that no violation occurred under Article I, section 9, when an officer told the defendant he was free to leave after handing him traffic citations and then obtained a voluntary consent to search the vehicle); State v. Arabzadeh, 162 Or App 423 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Maxie
See, e.g., State v. Astorga, 225 Or App 42, 47-48, 200 P3d 170 (2008), rev den, 346 On 361, 211 P3d 930 (2009) (defendant was the subject of an ongoing investigation and was not free to leave when a police officer called for a warrant check in his presence); State v. Highley, 219 Or App 100, 110 , 180 P3d 1230 (2008) (request for the defendant’s identification following question about his probationary status created an objectively reasonable belief that the defendant’s liberty had been restricted pending the results of a check on his probationary status); State v. Rider, 216 Or App 308, 31…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Coen
See, e.g., State v. Berg, 223 Or App 387, 399 , 196 P3d 547 (2008), adh’d to as modified on recons, 228 Or App 754 , 208 P3d 1006 , rev den, 346 Or 361 (2009); Wyant, 217 Or App at 206 ; State v. Phillips, 217 Or App 93, 98 , 174 P3d 1032 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAY
v.
HALL.
v.
HALL.
S056918.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jun 17, 2009.
Petition for review denied.