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.
26 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 8 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. Davisgreen2 sentences2023A determination that there is little likelihood that an error affected the verdict “is not a finding about how the [appellate] court views the weight of the evidence,” but rather “a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” Davis, 336 Or at 32 . 2023A determination that there is little likelihood that an error affected the verdict “is not a finding about how the [appellate] court views the weight of the evidence,” but rather “a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” Davis, 336 Or at 32 . | 1 | 17 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 544 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681 , 106 S Ct 1431 , 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986)). *190 Although the federal harmless error test shifts the focus from the likely effect of the error on the jury’s verdict to the strength of the state’s case despite the evidentiary error, 340 Or at 544 , for the reasons discussed in our state harmless error analysis above, we would conclude under the federal test that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Counts 2, 6, 7,10, and 11. 2007See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 544 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681 , 106 S Ct 1431 , 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986)). *190 Although the federal harmless error test shifts the focus from the likely effect of the error on the jury’s verdict to the strength of the state’s case despite the evidentiary error, 340 Or at 544 , for the reasons discussed in our state harmless error analysis above, we would conclude under the federal test that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Counts 2, 6, 7,10, and 11. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences2020And, as the Supreme Court explained in Davis, a determination that the “particular issue to which the error pertains has no relationship to the jury’s determination of its verdict” is “a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict”; it is not “a finding about how the court views the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” 336 Or at 32 ; see also Black, 364 Or at 596 (“In making a determination of harmlessness, the court does not ask whether the evidence of guilt is substan- tial or compelling, but rather whether the trial court’s error was likely to have infl 2020“An error is less likely to be harmless where it relates to a central factual issue in the case,” Black, 364 Or at 596 , though it may nevertheless be harmless error to exclude such evidence if it “is merely cumulative of, instead of qualitatively different than, evidence presented to the factfinder,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 544 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681 , 106 S Ct 1431 , 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986)). *190 Although the federal harmless error test shifts the focus from the likely effect of the error on the jury’s verdict to the strength of the state’s case despite the evidentiary error, 340 Or at 544 , for the reasons discussed in our state harmless error analysis above, we would conclude under the federal test that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Counts 2, 6, 7,10, and 11. 2007See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 544 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681 , 106 S Ct 1431 , 89 L Ed 2d 674 (1986)). *190 Although the federal harmless error test shifts the focus from the likely effect of the error on the jury’s verdict to the strength of the state’s case despite the evidentiary error, 340 Or at 544 , for the reasons discussed in our state harmless error analysis above, we would conclude under the federal test that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Counts 2, 6, 7,10, and 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. Schiller-Munneman
green
2 sentences2026The trial court merged the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 with the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 3, 5, and 7, respectively. 276 State v. Van Nelson evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt, but rather a legal conclu- sion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” State v. Schiller-Munneman, 359 Or 808, 819 , 377 P3d 554 (2016). 2026The trial court merged the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 with the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 3, 5, and 7, respectively. 276 State v. Van Nelson evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt, but rather a legal conclu- sion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” State v. Schiller-Munneman, 359 Or 808, 819 , 377 P3d 554 (2016). | 2 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Ramirez
neutral
2 sentences2025It is a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” Id. 2025It is a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict.” Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2023In the mental-state con- text in particular, the pertinent inquiry “is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite men- tal state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.” State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphases in original). 2023In the mental-state con- text in particular, the pertinent inquiry “is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite men- tal state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.” State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphases in original). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Marquez-Vela
green
2 sentences2022State v. Marquez-Vela, 266 Or App 738, 746 , 338 P3d 813 (2014). 2022State v. Marquez-Vela, 266 Or App 738, 746 , 338 P3d 813 (2014). | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Home Forward v. Graham
green
1 sentence2025When we determine the likely effect of the error, we consider “the possible influence that those statements had on the ver- dict and not whether proof of defendant’s guilt was compel- ling even without the statements.” State v. Sanelle, 287 Or App 611, 630 , 404 P3d 992 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sanelle
green
2 sentences2025When we determine the likely effect of the error, we consider “the possible influence that those statements had on the ver- dict and not whether proof of defendant’s guilt was compel- ling even without the statements.” State v. Sanelle, 287 Or App 611, 630 , 404 P3d 992 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018). 2025When we determine the likely effect of the error, we consider “the possible influence that those statements had on the ver- dict and not whether proof of defendant’s guilt was compel- ling even without the statements.” State v. Sanelle, 287 Or App 611, 630 , 404 P3d 992 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mitchell v. State of Oregon
neutral
2 sentences2022We review the post-conviction court’s prejudice determination for errors of law, and our role is to make “a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict, not a finding about how the court views the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Mitchell v. State of Oregon, 300 Or App 504, 515 , 454 P3d 805 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]n conducting our analysis, we must be aware of the distorting effect of hindsight, which includes a risk of confirmation bias, that is, a risk that, in hindsight, there may be a tendency to view counsel’s errors as hav 2022We review the post-conviction court’s prejudice determination for errors of law, and our role is to make “a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict, not a finding about how the court views the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Mitchell v. State of Oregon, 300 Or App 504, 515 , 454 P3d 805 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]n conducting our analysis, we must be aware of the distorting effect of hindsight, which includes a risk of confirmation bias, that is, a risk that, in hindsight, there may be a tendency to view counsel’s errors as hav | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Berry
green
2 sentences2019Our role is to make “ ‘a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict,’ ” not “ ‘a finding about how the court views the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” State v. Berry, 293 Or App 717, 730-31 , 429 P3d 1011 (2018) (quoting Davis, 336 Or at 32 ).6 And, in conducting our analysis, we must be aware of the “distorting effect of hindsight,” which includes a risk of “confirmation bias,” that is, a risk that, “in hindsight, there may be a ten- dency to view counsel’s errors as having had no effect on 5 Defense counsel also inexplicably injected the suggesti 2019Our role is to make “ ‘a legal conclusion about the likely effect of the error on the verdict,’ ” not “ ‘a finding about how the court views the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” State v. Berry, 293 Or App 717, 730-31 , 429 P3d 1011 (2018) (quoting Davis, 336 Or at 32 ).6 And, in conducting our analysis, we must be aware of the “distorting effect of hindsight,” which includes a risk of “confirmation bias,” that is, a risk that, “in hindsight, there may be a ten- dency to view counsel’s errors as having had no effect on 5 Defense counsel also inexplicably injected the suggesti | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Dowty
green
2 sentences2019Cf. State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 775 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (“[T]here appears to be little distinction between an assessment whether a trial court error was ‘prejudicial’ to a pro- bationer and an assessment of ‘harmlessness’ in an appeal from a judgment of conviction. 2019Cf. State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 775 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (“[T]here appears to be little distinction between an assessment whether a trial court error was ‘prejudicial’ to a pro- bationer and an assessment of ‘harmlessness’ in an appeal from a judgment of conviction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.