Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2025He notes that the legal standard for unavailability under Article I, section 11, is articulated in Belden: “the constitutional confrontation guarantee requires that the ‘state must have exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ ” Id. at 10 (quoting State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 , 66, 404 P3d 926 (2017)). 2025He notes that the legal standard for unavailability under Article I, section 11, is articulated in Belden: “the constitutional confrontation guarantee requires that the ‘state must have exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ ” Id. at 10 (quoting State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 , 66, 404 P3d 926 (2017)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Parkinsgreen1 sentence2011Although trial counsel and the court appear to have conflated the unavailability requirement under the Oregon Evidence Code and Article I, section 11, we are persuaded that the parties and the trial court were fully aware that the state was required to establish that the victim was unavailable under Article I, section 11, and that defendant sufficiently alerted the court to his argument that that standard had not been met. 6 In particular, our conclusion is guided by the Supreme Court’s application of the preservation rule in Parkins , which posed a similarly postured dispute about whether the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barkleygreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Barkley, 315 Or at 429-31 (examining availability of declarant in course of Article I, section 11, analysis, but noting that, under White , Sixth Amendment does not require unavailability); Cornell, 314 Or at 682 , 682 n 15 (noting that, under Sixth Amendment, state need not demonstrate unavailability before introducing coconspirator statements, but examining unavailability under Article I, section 11). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Iseli
green
2 sentences2025He notes that the legal standard for unavailability under Article I, section 11, is articulated in Belden: “the constitutional confrontation guarantee requires that the ‘state must have exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ ” Id. at 10 (quoting State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 , 66, 404 P3d 926 (2017)). 2025He notes that the legal standard for unavailability under Article I, section 11, is articulated in Belden: “the constitutional confrontation guarantee requires that the ‘state must have exhausted all reasonably available means of producing the witness.’ ” Id. at 10 (quoting State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 , 66, 404 P3d 926 (2017)). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Belden
green
2 sentences2020Cf. State v. Belden, 303 Or App 438, 447 , 464 P3d 465 (2020) (state’s efforts to secure the witness were sufficient where, despite the witness saying she did not want to testify and evading service, the state successfully served her with a subpoena; spoke with the witness’s probation officer about securing the witness’s testimony; and, on the morning of trial, unsuccessfully attempted to contact the witness in person at her home). 2020Cf. State v. Belden, 303 Or App 438, 447 , 464 P3d 465 (2020) (state’s efforts to secure the witness were sufficient where, despite the witness saying she did not want to testify and evading service, the state successfully served her with a subpoena; spoke with the witness’s probation officer about securing the witness’s testimony; and, on the morning of trial, unsuccessfully attempted to contact the witness in person at her home). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2011In Anderson, we considered whether the state had made a good-faith effort to secure the appearance of several declarants at trial and had thereby established that they were unavailable to testify. 42 Or App at 31-32 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Cornell
green
1 sentence2002See, e.g., Barkley, 315 Or at 429-31 (examining availability of declarant in course of Article I, section 11, analysis, but noting that, under White , Sixth Amendment does not require unavailability); Cornell, 314 Or at 682 , 682 n 15 (noting that, under Sixth Amendment, state need not demonstrate unavailability before introducing coconspirator statements, but examining unavailability under Article I, section 11). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.