20 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2025 20 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. Durantgreen2 sentences2025That is, “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s com- ments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. “[P]rosecutorial state- ments that were improper but curable are not an appropri- ate subject of plain-error review, because, in such circum- stances, the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 Or App 363, 365 , 535 P3d 808 (2023), rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (emphasis 2025That is, “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s com- ments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. “[P]rosecutorial state- ments that were improper but curable are not an appropri- ate subject of plain-error review, because, in such circum- stances, the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 Or App 363, 365 , 535 P3d 808 (2023), rev den, 374 Or 143 (2025) (emphasis | 3 | 12 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chitwood
green
2 sentences2025It then explained that, in reviewing a claim of plain error, “as in the context of a preserved error, it is not enough for a defendant to show that a prosecutor’s comments were improper,” and went on to conclude that “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. 2025It then explained that, in reviewing a claim of plain error, “as in the context of a preserved error, it is not enough for a defendant to show that a prosecutor’s comments were improper,” and went on to conclude that “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. | 15 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025“That is important 728 State v. Valencia-Zeferino because, ‘[g]enerally, a proper jury instruction is adequate to cure any presumed prejudice from a prosecutor’s mis- conduct.’ ” State v. Babcock, 327 Or App 358, 360 , 535 P3d 345 (2023) (quoting State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 583 , 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009)). 2025“That is important 728 State v. Valencia-Zeferino because, ‘[g]enerally, a proper jury instruction is adequate to cure any presumed prejudice from a prosecutor’s mis- conduct.’ ” State v. Babcock, 327 Or App 358, 360 , 535 P3d 345 (2023) (quoting State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 583 , 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009)). | 6 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Babcock
green
2 sentences2025“That is important 728 State v. Valencia-Zeferino because, ‘[g]enerally, a proper jury instruction is adequate to cure any presumed prejudice from a prosecutor’s mis- conduct.’ ” State v. Babcock, 327 Or App 358, 360 , 535 P3d 345 (2023) (quoting State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 583 , 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009)). 2025“That is important 728 State v. Valencia-Zeferino because, ‘[g]enerally, a proper jury instruction is adequate to cure any presumed prejudice from a prosecutor’s mis- conduct.’ ” State v. Babcock, 327 Or App 358, 360 , 535 P3d 345 (2023) (quoting State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 583 , 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009)). | 5 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Perez
green
2 sentences2025Further, “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that 804 State v. Wilson the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been suffi- ciently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. 2025Further, “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that 804 State v. Wilson the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been suffi- ciently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. | 4 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Diamond
neutral
2 sentences2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 628 (2024) 631 As relevant here, the Supreme Court has explained that “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been suffi- ciently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial. 2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 628 (2024) 631 As relevant here, the Supreme Court has explained that “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been suffi- ciently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2023“In other words, prosecutorial statements that were improper but curable are not an appropriate subject of plain-error review, because, in such circumstances, the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 1 “Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). 2023“In other words, prosecutorial statements that were improper but curable are not an appropriate subject of plain-error review, because, in such circumstances, the defendant was not denied a fair trial.” State v. Durant, 327 1 “Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Montez
green
1 sentence2022In that situation, we have described the denial of the right to a fair trial as indicating “plain error.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.