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.
17 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2015 0 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. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2006Compare State v. Galloway, 202 Or App 613, 619 , 123 P3d 352 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 201 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence) with State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005) (exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against *131 defendant was scant”). 2006Compare State v. Galloway, 202 Or App 613, 619 , 123 P3d 352 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 201 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence) with State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005) (exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against *131 defendant was scant”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Coxgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Cox, 337 Or 477, 500 , 98 P3d 1103 (2004) (declining to exercise plain error review of an unpreserved Crawford objection). 2006See State v. Cox, 337 Or 477, 500 , 98 P3d 1103 (2004) (declining to exercise plain error review of an unpreserved Crawford objection). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Pagegreen2 sentences2006Compare State v. Galloway, 202 Or App 613, 619 , 123 P3d 352 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 201 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence) with State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005) (exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against *131 defendant was scant”). 2006Compare State v. Galloway, 202 Or App 613, 619 , 123 P3d 352 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 201 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence) with State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005) (exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against *131 defendant was scant”). | 2 | 3 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2013A. Documentary evidence and the Crawford test In Crawford, the Court described a testimonial statement as one made by an “accuser” that can be characterized as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” 541 US at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2013A. Documentary evidence and the Crawford test In Crawford, the Court described a testimonial statement as one made by an “accuser” that can be characterized as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” 541 US at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences2008In Mack , after examining the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford , the Oregon Supreme Court explained: “Under Crawford , the initial, and often dispositive, question is whether an out-of-court statement is ‘testimonial.’ If it is, the statement cannot be admitted in a criminal case unless (1) the defendant had or has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, (2) the statement is not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, or (3) the statement comes within a small class of exceptions to the Crawford rule.” 337 Or at 592 (footnotes omitted). 2008In Mack , after examining the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford , the Oregon Supreme Court explained: “Under Crawford , the initial, and often dispositive, question is whether an out-of-court statement is ‘testimonial.’ If it is, the statement cannot be admitted in a criminal case unless (1) the defendant had or has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, (2) the statement is not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, or (3) the statement comes within a small class of exceptions to the Crawford rule.” 337 Or at 592 (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jurygreen2 sentences2007See State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003) (appellate courts apply law in effect at time of appeal). 2 In the trial court, defendant objected to the admission of Robinson’s and D’s statements on both state and federal constitutional grounds. 2005Jury, 185 Or App at 138 . *618 “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” *619 Defendant maintains that our decision in State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005), compels us to consider t | 1 | 2 |
Accident Prevention Division v. Roseburg Forest Productsgreen1 sentence2013See OAR 437-001-0760(l)(a) (rule providing that employers must take safety precautions “does not require a supervisor on every part of an operation nor prohibit workers from working alone” (emphasis added)); Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App at 72 (so stating). | 1 | 1 |
Danforth v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio 2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio | 1 | 1 |
Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003) (appellate courts apply law in effect at time of appeal). 2 In the trial court, defendant objected to the admission of Robinson’s and D’s statements on both state and federal constitutional grounds. 2007See State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003) (appellate courts apply law in effect at time of appeal). 2 In the trial court, defendant objected to the admission of Robinson’s and D’s statements on both state and federal constitutional grounds. | 1 | 1 |
Lave v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio 2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio | 1 | 1 |
Drach v. Brucegreen2 sentences2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio 2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Keithgreen2 sentences2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio 2007See also Lave, 444 F3d at 335-36 (adhering to rationale of Second and Seventh Circuits: “Teague analysis is at least partially comparative and requires assessing the risk of false conviction under the old rule against that risk under the new rule.”); Drach v. Bruce, 136 P3d 390, 404 (Kan 2006) (“While application of Crawford may improve the accuracy of convictions in some instances by providing the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, Crawford might diminish the accuracy of a conviction in the case where evidence is highly reliable but excluded because it was not subject to cross-examinatio | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeKUYPERgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 215-16 , *280 136 P3d 872 , rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence); State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126 , 133 P3d 920 , rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (same); Galloway, 202 Or App at 619 (same). 2006See, e.g., State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83-84 , 104 P3d 616 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (exercising discretion to review unpreserved Crawford objection where “the evidence against defendant was scant”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Poitragreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 215-16 , *280 136 P3d 872 , rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence); State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126 , 133 P3d 920 , rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (same); Galloway, 202 Or App at 619 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thackaberrygreen1 sentence2005Compare Thackaberry, 194 Or App at 517 (declining to review unpreserved Crawford error because “likelihood is great” that record would have developed differently). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2015Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 US 305, 307 , 129 S Ct 2527 , 174 L Ed 2d 314 (2009), the Court applied the Crawford analysis, not to the out-of-court oral statement of a witness, but to a document — in particular, to the forensic analysis of material seized by police, certifying that the material was cocaine. 2015Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 US 305, 307 , 129 S Ct 2527 , 174 L Ed 2d 314 (2009), the Court applied the Crawford analysis, not to the out-of-court oral statement of a witness, but to a document — in particular, to the forensic analysis of material seized by police, certifying that the material was cocaine. | 2 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Pitt
green
2 sentences2009We concluded that the videotapes, which were admitted in violation of the defendant’s right to confrontation, “very likely played a significant role in the jury's deliberations,” because the state’s entire case depended on evidence contained in statements from the victims, “whose credibility was the linchpin of the case.” 209 Or App at 280 . 2008In State v. Pitt, 209 Or App 270 , 147 P3d 940 (2006), adh’d to on recons, 212 Or App 523 , 159 P3d 329 (2007), we addressed whether children’s statements during an interview at the advocacy center were “testimonial” for Crawford purposes. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Crawford v. SAIF Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Although the Crawford claim did involve a condition, not a mere symptom, we construed the same statutes to require that, if “the claimant expressly seeks to have accepted” a new or omitted condition, “then the insurer must respond by processing the omitted condition claim pursuant to ORS 656.262(7)(a)[.]” Id. at 480 . 2015Although the Crawford claim did involve a condition, not a mere symptom, we construed the same statutes to require that, if “the claimant expressly seeks to have accepted” a new or omitted condition, “then the insurer must respond by processing the omitted condition claim pursuant to ORS 656.262(7)(a)[.]” Id. at 480 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014CBI Services, Inc., 254 Or App at 473-74 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Kruchek
green
1 sentence2013Employer alternatively argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in addressing its affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct, conflating “reasonable diligence” with an element of that affirmative defense requiring a showing that the employer “has taken steps to discover violations.” We agree, and OR-OSHA likewise concedes, that “it was error to use the same evidence to prove the constructive knowledge element of OR-OSHA’s prima facie case and to disprove [that] element of [employer’s] unpreventable employee misconduct defense.” However, OR-OSHA argues that “that error does no | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence2013Employer alternatively argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in addressing its affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct, conflating “reasonable diligence” with an element of that affirmative defense requiring a showing that the employer “has taken steps to discover violations.” We agree, and OR-OSHA likewise concedes, that “it was error to use the same evidence to prove the constructive knowledge element of OR-OSHA’s prima facie case and to disprove [that] element of [employer’s] unpreventable employee misconduct defense.” However, OR-OSHA argues that “that error does no | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Pitt
green
2 sentences2008In State v. Pitt, 209 Or App 270 , 147 P3d 940 (2006), adh’d to on recons, 212 Or App 523 , 159 P3d 329 (2007), we addressed whether children’s statements during an interview at the advocacy center were “testimonial” for Crawford purposes. 2008In State v. Pitt, 209 Or App 270 , 147 P3d 940 (2006), adh’d to on recons, 212 Or App 523 , 159 P3d 329 (2007), we addressed whether children’s statements during an interview at the advocacy center were “testimonial” for Crawford purposes. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Marcus Mungo v. George Duncan
green
2 sentences2007If the Crawford rule is eventually so interpreted, it will additionally diminish the accuracy of the trial process: under Roberts , nontestimonial hearsay deemed unreliable is barred by the Confrontation Clause.” Mungo, 393 F3d at 336 n 7 (citations omitted). 2007If the Crawford rule is eventually so interpreted, it will additionally diminish the accuracy of the trial process: under Roberts , nontestimonial hearsay deemed unreliable is barred by the Confrontation Clause.” Mungo, 393 F3d at 336 n 7 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Stalder
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 215-16 , *280 136 P3d 872 , rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence); State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126 , 133 P3d 920 , rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (same); Galloway, 202 Or App at 619 (same). 2006See, e.g., State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 215-16 , *280 136 P3d 872 , rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt over and above the disputed evidence); State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126 , 133 P3d 920 , rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (same); Galloway, 202 Or App at 619 (same). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.