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.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harrison v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010However, in Harrison , the Court used the words “induced” or “impelled” to describe the connection necessary between the erroneously admitted statements and a defendant’s trial testimony: “Having ‘released the spring’ by using the petitioner’s unlawfully obtained confession against him, the government must show that its illegal action did not induce his testimony.” 392 US at 225 (emphasis added). | 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. Ehly
green
2 sentences2021We review by “accepting the trial court’s supported factual findings and determining ‘whether the trial court applied legal principles correctly to those facts.’ ” State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or App 218, 223 , 482 P3d 150 (2021) (quoting State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 74-75 , 854 P2d 421 (1993)). 2021We review by “accepting the trial court’s supported factual findings and determining ‘whether the trial court applied legal principles correctly to those facts.’ ” State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or App 218, 223 , 482 P3d 150 (2021) (quoting State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 74-75 , 854 P2d 421 (1993)). | 3 | 2015–2021 |
State v. Senin
neutral
2 sentences2023“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress for legal error and are bound by that court’s findings of historical facts if there is evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Senin, 301 Or App 358, 359 , 456 P3d 334 (2019). 2023“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress for legal error and are bound by that court’s findings of historical facts if there is evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Senin, 301 Or App 358, 359 , 456 P3d 334 (2019). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Soto-Navarro
green
2 sentences2021We review by “accepting the trial court’s supported factual findings and determining ‘whether the trial court applied legal principles correctly to those facts.’ ” State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or App 218, 223 , 482 P3d 150 (2021) (quoting State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 74-75 , 854 P2d 421 (1993)). 2021We review by “accepting the trial court’s supported factual findings and determining ‘whether the trial court applied legal principles correctly to those facts.’ ” State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or App 218, 223 , 482 P3d 150 (2021) (quoting State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 74-75 , 854 P2d 421 (1993)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2010State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 6 ORS 136.432, which did not apply when the defendant in McGinnis was convicted, now provides that a court may not exclude otherwise admissible evidence solely on the ground that the evidence was obtained in violation of a statute. 7 In its brief, the state describes the Harrison rule as requiring a court to conclude that a defendant’s trial testimony was “compelled” by the erroneous admission of the unconstitutionally obtained statement. 2010State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 6 ORS 136.432, which did not apply when the defendant in McGinnis was convicted, now provides that a court may not exclude otherwise admissible evidence solely on the ground that the evidence was obtained in violation of a statute. 7 In its brief, the state describes the Harrison rule as requiring a court to conclude that a defendant’s trial testimony was “compelled” by the erroneous admission of the unconstitutionally obtained statement. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.