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.
22 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2008The former jeopardy provision of Article I, section 12, is designed to further the objective of protecting criminal defendants from the “harassment, embarrassment and risk of successive prosecutions for the same offense.” State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 272-73 , 666 P2d 1316 (1983); see also State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558, 562 , 533 P2d 795 (1975) (stating that the purpose of the former jeopardy doctrine is to protect the accused from undue harassment). 2008The former jeopardy provision of Article I, section 12, is designed to further the objective of protecting criminal defendants from the “harassment, embarrassment and risk of successive prosecutions for the same offense.” State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 272-73 , 666 P2d 1316 (1983); see also State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558, 562 , 533 P2d 795 (1975) (stating that the purpose of the former jeopardy doctrine is to protect the accused from undue harassment). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2022With respect to the new state constitutional rule that was at issue in the case (the former jeopardy rule drawn from Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution in State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972)), the court announced that the “deter- mination of retroactivity or prospectivity is for us alone”— but declared that it would nevertheless look to the Supreme Court’s cases pertaining to federal constitutional rules for guidance. 2022With respect to the new state constitutional rule that was at issue in the case (the former jeopardy rule drawn from Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution in State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972)), the court announced that the “deter- mination of retroactivity or prospectivity is for us alone”— but declared that it would nevertheless look to the Supreme Court’s cases pertaining to federal constitutional rules for guidance. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Huntergreen2 sentences2006Dept. v. Nelson, 124 Or App 562, 566 , 863 P2d 497 (1993), rev den, 319 Or 81 (1994) (citing Hunter, 58 Or App at 106-07 ) (“[A] prosecutor’s ‘suspicion’ that other wrongful acts may have been perpetrated is not sufficient to invoke the former jeopardy rule.”). 1993See State v. Hunter, 58 Or App 99, 106-07 , 647 P2d 943 (1982), rev den 294 Or 391 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2006Dept. v. Nelson, 124 Or App 562, 566 , 863 P2d 497 (1993), rev den, 319 Or 81 (1994) (citing Hunter, 58 Or App at 106-07 ) (“[A] prosecutor’s ‘suspicion’ that other wrongful acts may have been perpetrated is not sufficient to invoke the former jeopardy rule.”). 2006Dept. v. Nelson, 124 Or App 562, 566 , 863 P2d 497 (1993), rev den, 319 Or 81 (1994) (citing Hunter, 58 Or App at 106-07 ) (“[A] prosecutor’s ‘suspicion’ that other wrongful acts may have been perpetrated is not sufficient to invoke the former jeopardy rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nguyengreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Nguyen, 95 Or App at 657 n 5 (citing Hathaway, and noting that when the state fails to move for joinder in a close case, Mancuso and Washington do not “dictate” that resolution of a former jeopardy claim in the defendant’s favor “automatically follows”); Black / Tuttle, 89 Or App at 363-64 (concluding that Mancuso was not apposite in determining whether thefts constituted a single “criminal episode” and relying on Hathaway as “more relevant authority”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackgreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Nguyen, 95 Or App at 657 n 5 (citing Hathaway, and noting that when the state fails to move for joinder in a close case, Mancuso and Washington do not “dictate” that resolution of a former jeopardy claim in the defendant’s favor “automatically follows”); Black / Tuttle, 89 Or App at 363-64 (concluding that Mancuso was not apposite in determining whether thefts constituted a single “criminal episode” and relying on Hathaway as “more relevant authority”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bannistergreen2 sentences1997See State v. Bannister, 118 Or App 252, 257 , 846 P2d 1189 (1993) (“The purpose of the former jeopardy rule is to protect defendants from harassment by the state and to prevent the state from seeking to hone its case against a defendant through repeated prosecutions.”). 1997See State v. Bannister, 118 Or App 252, 257 , 846 P2d 1189 (1993) (“The purpose of the former jeopardy rule is to protect defendants from harassment by the state and to prevent the state from seeking to hone its case against a defendant through repeated prosecutions.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodleygreen2 sentences1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). 1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodleygreen2 sentences1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). 1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Offetgreen2 sentences1990See State v. Offet, 36 Or App 865 , 585 P2d 765 (1978); State v. De Ford, 120 Or 444 , 250 P 220 (1926). 1990See State v. Offet, 36 Or App 865 , 585 P2d 765 (1978); State v. De Ford, 120 Or 444 , 250 P 220 (1926). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mancusogreen2 sentences1989See State v. Boyd, supra, 271 Or at 568 ; see also State v. Mancuso, 25 Or App 785 , 551 P2d 110 , rev den (1976); State v. Washington, 28 Or App 765 , 561 P2d 644 (1977). 1989See State v. Boyd, supra, 271 Or at 568 ; see also State v. Mancuso, 25 Or App 785 , 551 P2d 110 , rev den (1976); State v. Washington, 28 Or App 765 , 561 P2d 644 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hathawaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'Halloran v. Myersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barnett v. Gladdengreen | 1 | 1 |
| North v. Cuppgreen | 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. Lyons
green
2 sentences2008As we explained in State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003), a former jeopardy challenge under that statute has three elements: “(1) the separate prosecutions are for two or more offenses that are part of the same criminal episode; (2) the offenses were known to the prosecutor when the first prosecution was commenced; and (3) venue was proper in a single court.” “It is a defendant’s burden to prove each element of former jeopardy, and, normally, a failure to prove any element would doom his former jeopardy challenge.” State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355, 360 , 985 P2d 204 (1999) (cita 2008As we explained in State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003), a former jeopardy challenge under that statute has three elements: “(1) the separate prosecutions are for two or more offenses that are part of the same criminal episode; (2) the offenses were known to the prosecutor when the first prosecution was commenced; and (3) venue was proper in a single court.” “It is a defendant’s burden to prove each element of former jeopardy, and, normally, a failure to prove any element would doom his former jeopardy challenge.” State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355, 360 , 985 P2d 204 (1999) (cita | 4 | 2003–2010 |
State v. Fore
green
2 sentences2008As we explained in State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003), a former jeopardy challenge under that statute has three elements: “(1) the separate prosecutions are for two or more offenses that are part of the same criminal episode; (2) the offenses were known to the prosecutor when the first prosecution was commenced; and (3) venue was proper in a single court.” “It is a defendant’s burden to prove each element of former jeopardy, and, normally, a failure to prove any element would doom his former jeopardy challenge.” State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355, 360 , 985 P2d 204 (1999) (cita 2008As we explained in State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003), a former jeopardy challenge under that statute has three elements: “(1) the separate prosecutions are for two or more offenses that are part of the same criminal episode; (2) the offenses were known to the prosecutor when the first prosecution was commenced; and (3) venue was proper in a single court.” “It is a defendant’s burden to prove each element of former jeopardy, and, normally, a failure to prove any element would doom his former jeopardy challenge.” State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355, 360 , 985 P2d 204 (1999) (cita | 3 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2024We then allowed review to examine the Court of Appeals’ assumption that the standard under the former jeopardy clause of the Oregon Constitution is identical to the federal standard. 295 Or at 262 . 2008The former jeopardy provision of Article I, section 12, is designed to further the objective of protecting criminal defendants from the “harassment, embarrassment and risk of successive prosecutions for the same offense.” State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 272-73 , 666 P2d 1316 (1983); see also State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558, 562 , 533 P2d 795 (1975) (stating that the purpose of the former jeopardy doctrine is to protect the accused from undue harassment). | 2 | 2008–2024 |
State v. Knowles
green
2 sentences2010State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 822 , 618 P2d 1245 (1980); State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003). 2003State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 822 , 618 P2d 1245 (1980); Lyons, 161 Or App at 360 . 2 In this case, the state argues that defendant failed to establish two of the elements of a former jeopardy claim. | 2 | 2003–2010 |
State v. Knowles
green
2 sentences2010State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 822 , 618 P2d 1245 (1980); State v. Fore, 185 Or App 712, 715 , 62 P3d 400 (2003). 2003State v. Knowles, 289 Or 813, 822 , 618 P2d 1245 (1980); Lyons, 161 Or App at 360 . 2 In this case, the state argues that defendant failed to establish two of the elements of a former jeopardy claim. | 2 | 2003–2010 |
State v. Fair
green
1 sentence2022Fair, 263 Or at 388 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. McIntyre
neutral
1 sentence2010Although, to be sure, in McIntyre, 94 Or App at 243 , we stated that the successive prosecutions in that case violated both subsections (1) and (2) of ORS 131.515, as noted, the issue before the court was whether the two charges litigated the “same criminal episode,” a concept that implicates subsection (2). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Baldwin
neutral
2 sentences2008Under Article I, section 12, “a second prosecution is for the ‘same offense’ and is prohibited if (1) the charges arise out of the same act or transaction, and (2) the charges could have been tried in the same court, and (3) the prosecutor knew or reasonably should have known of the facts relevant to the second charge at the time of the original prosecution.” State v. Baldwin, 206 Or App 643, 654 , 138 P3d 867 (2006). 2008Under Article I, section 12, “a second prosecution is for the ‘same offense’ and is prohibited if (1) the charges arise out of the same act or transaction, and (2) the charges could have been tried in the same court, and (3) the prosecutor knew or reasonably should have known of the facts relevant to the second charge at the time of the original prosecution.” State v. Baldwin, 206 Or App 643, 654 , 138 P3d 867 (2006). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
green
2 sentences2002James, 159 Or App at 513-16 . 5 In so arguing, the state adopted the position advanced by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 US 767 , 128 L Ed 2d 767 , 114 S Ct 1937 (1994), that the notion of double jeopardy applying to multiple punishments is a relatively recent construct and does not take into account the fact that, at the time of the drafting of the Fifth Amendment, legislation providing two sanctions for the same misconduct was quite common. 6 See State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973) (holding that cumulation of penalties is not 2002James, 159 Or App at 513-16 . 5 In so arguing, the state adopted the position advanced by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 US 767 , 128 L Ed 2d 767 , 114 S Ct 1937 (1994), that the notion of double jeopardy applying to multiple punishments is a relatively recent construct and does not take into account the fact that, at the time of the drafting of the Fifth Amendment, legislation providing two sanctions for the same misconduct was quite common. 6 See State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973) (holding that cumulation of penalties is not | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence2002James, 159 Or App at 513-16 . 5 In so arguing, the state adopted the position advanced by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 US 767 , 128 L Ed 2d 767 , 114 S Ct 1937 (1994), that the notion of double jeopardy applying to multiple punishments is a relatively recent construct and does not take into account the fact that, at the time of the drafting of the Fifth Amendment, legislation providing two sanctions for the same misconduct was quite common. 6 See State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973) (holding that cumulation of penalties is not | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Selness
green
2 sentences2002State v. Selness/ Miller, 154 Or App 579, 586-88 , 962 P2d 739 (1998). 2002State v. Selness/ Miller, 154 Or App 579, 586-88 , 962 P2d 739 (1998). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brown v. Multnomah County District Court
green
2 sentences2002Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977). 2002Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Welch
green
2 sentences2002James, 159 Or App at 513-16 . 5 In so arguing, the state adopted the position advanced by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 US 767 , 128 L Ed 2d 767 , 114 S Ct 1937 (1994), that the notion of double jeopardy applying to multiple punishments is a relatively recent construct and does not take into account the fact that, at the time of the drafting of the Fifth Amendment, legislation providing two sanctions for the same misconduct was quite common. 6 See State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973) (holding that cumulation of penalties is not 2002James, 159 Or App at 513-16 . 5 In so arguing, the state adopted the position advanced by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 US 767 , 128 L Ed 2d 767 , 114 S Ct 1937 (1994), that the notion of double jeopardy applying to multiple punishments is a relatively recent construct and does not take into account the fact that, at the time of the drafting of the Fifth Amendment, legislation providing two sanctions for the same misconduct was quite common. 6 See State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973) (holding that cumulation of penalties is not | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Darlin
green
2 sentences2000Cf. State v. Darlin, 122 Or App 172 , 857 P2d 859 (1993) (reaching similar result in interpreting virtually identical statute concerning crimes and traffic infractions). 2000Cf. State v. Darlin, 122 Or App 172 , 857 P2d 859 (1993) (reaching similar result in interpreting virtually identical statute concerning crimes and traffic infractions). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, Charles Arlt James Wren Payback Mines, Claimants-Appellants
green
1 sentence1996The state then indicted defendant based on the December controlled buys, and defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Fifth Amendment’s former jeopardy clause 1 barred the criminal prosecution because of the previous civil forfeiture judgment under chapter 791. 2 Defendant based his motion on the holding of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F3d 1210 (9th Cir 1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Endsley
green
2 sentences1993Whatever merit defendant’s argument may have in the abstract, we reject it because the issue appears to be foreclosed by the broad holding of State v. Endsley, 214 Or 537 , 331 P2d 338 (1958). 1993Whatever merit defendant’s argument may have in the abstract, we reject it because the issue appears to be foreclosed by the broad holding of State v. Endsley, 214 Or 537 , 331 P2d 338 (1958). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Helander
neutral
2 sentences1993State v. Helander, 92 Or App 108 , 758 P2d 359 (1988). 1993State v. Helander, 92 Or App 108 , 758 P2d 359 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). 1990See State v. Woodley, 88 Or App 493 , 746 P2d 227 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 306 Or 458 , 760 P2d 884 (1988); State v. Johnson, 80 Or App 350 , 722 P2d 1266 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. De Ford
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Offet, 36 Or App 865 , 585 P2d 765 (1978); State v. De Ford, 120 Or 444 , 250 P 220 (1926). 1990See State v. Offet, 36 Or App 865 , 585 P2d 765 (1978); State v. De Ford, 120 Or 444 , 250 P 220 (1926). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Washington yellow | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Washington green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Elliott v. Gladden neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. DILLS STICE green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Guse v. Gladden green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Haynes v. Cupp green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Thompson neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Allen green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Thompson neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.