ability to present defense in Oregon

2026To prevail on a speedy trial motion under either the state or federal constitution, a defendant must demon- strate, among other points, a reasonable possibility that he suffered one of three forms of prejudice: “excessive pretrial detention, anxiety and stress resulting from the public accu- sation of a crime, and impairment of the ability to present a defense at trial.” State v. Wendt, 268 Or App 85, 101 , 341 P3d 893 (2014); State v. Johnson, 342 Or 596, 615 , 157 P3d 198 (2007), cert den, 552 US 1113 (2008) (discussing relationship between state and federal constitutional standards).

2026To prevail on a speedy trial motion under either the state or federal constitution, a defendant must demon- strate, among other points, a reasonable possibility that he suffered one of three forms of prejudice: “excessive pretrial detention, anxiety and stress resulting from the public accu- sation of a crime, and impairment of the ability to present a defense at trial.” State v. Wendt, 268 Or App 85, 101 , 341 P3d 893 (2014); State v. Johnson, 342 Or 596, 615 , 157 P3d 198 (2007), cert den, 552 US 1113 (2008) (discussing relationship between state and federal constitutional standards).

2026To prevail on a speedy trial motion under either the state or federal constitution, a defendant must demon- strate, among other points, a reasonable possibility that he suffered one of three forms of prejudice: “excessive pretrial detention, anxiety and stress resulting from the public accu- sation of a crime, and impairment of the ability to present a defense at trial.” State v. Wendt, 268 Or App 85, 101 , 341 P3d 893 (2014); State v. Johnson, 342 Or 596, 615 , 157 P3d 198 (2007), cert den, 552 US 1113 (2008) (discussing relationship between state and federal constitutional standards).

2026To prevail on a speedy trial motion under either the state or federal constitution, a defendant must demon- strate, among other points, a reasonable possibility that he suffered one of three forms of prejudice: “excessive pretrial detention, anxiety and stress resulting from the public accu- sation of a crime, and impairment of the ability to present a defense at trial.” State v. Wendt, 268 Or App 85, 101 , 341 P3d 893 (2014); State v. Johnson, 342 Or 596, 615 , 157 P3d 198 (2007), cert den, 552 US 1113 (2008) (discussing relationship between state and federal constitutional standards).

2021Of those, “the last is the most serious, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare a case skews the fairness of the entire system.” State v. Tiner, 340 Or 551, 555 , 135 P3d 305 (2006), cert den, 549 US 1169 (2007).

2021Of those, “the last is the most serious, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare a case skews the fairness of the entire system.” State v. Tiner, 340 Or 551, 555 , 135 P3d 305 (2006), cert den, 549 US 1169 (2007).

2021Of those, “the last is the most serious, because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare a case skews the fairness of the entire system.” State v. Tiner, 340 Or 551, 555 , 135 P3d 305 (2006), cert den, 549 US 1169 (2007).

2015As we emphasized in State v. Dahrens, 192 Or App 283, 286 , 84 P3d 1122 (2004), Boyce indicates that “the defense of self-defense is available where an act is done with the knowledge or intent that it will thwart another’s application of unlawful force” and, thus, that a defendant need not “intend to assault another in order to claim self-defense.” See also State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 556 , 516 P2d 748 (1973) (“The fact that defendant claimed accident by testifying that he did not intend to kill [the victim] does not deprive him of the right to an instruction on self-defense if there is als

2015As we emphasized in State v. Dahrens, 192 Or App 283, 286 , 84 P3d 1122 (2004), Boyce indicates that “the defense of self-defense is available where an act is done with the knowledge or intent that it will thwart another’s application of unlawful force” and, thus, that a defendant need not “intend to assault another in order to claim self-defense.” See also State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 556 , 516 P2d 748 (1973) (“The fact that defendant claimed accident by testifying that he did not intend to kill [the victim] does not deprive him of the right to an instruction on self-defense if there is als

2015As we emphasized in State v. Dahrens, 192 Or App 283, 286 , 84 P3d 1122 (2004), Boyce indicates that “the defense of self-defense is available where an act is done with the knowledge or intent that it will thwart another’s application of unlawful force” and, thus, that a defendant need not “intend to assault another in order to claim self-defense.” See also State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 556 , 516 P2d 748 (1973) (“The fact that defendant claimed accident by testifying that he did not intend to kill [the victim] does not deprive him of the right to an instruction on self-defense if there is als

2015As we emphasized in State v. Dahrens, 192 Or App 283, 286 , 84 P3d 1122 (2004), Boyce indicates that “the defense of self-defense is available where an act is done with the knowledge or intent that it will thwart another’s application of unlawful force” and, thus, that a defendant need not “intend to assault another in order to claim self-defense.” See also State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 556 , 516 P2d 748 (1973) (“The fact that defendant claimed accident by testifying that he did not intend to kill [the victim] does not deprive him of the right to an instruction on self-defense if there is als

2014State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 473-74 , 869 P2d 859 (1994).

2014State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 473-74 , 869 P2d 859 (1994).