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.
15 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 13 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. Hortongreen2 sentences2026See also Horton, 327 Or App at 260 - 61 (“[D]efendant never raised any issue regarding a mental-state requirement for the value element of criminal mischief. * * * We therefore proceed with plain-error review.”). 2026In Horton, the trial court gave no mental-state instruction for the value element of criminal mischief, and the defendant “never raised any issue regarding a mental-state requirement” for that element. 327 Or App at 260 . | 5 | 7 |
State v. McKinney/Shiffergreen2 sentences2026Error, in general, must be determined by the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial.” (Footnote omitted.)); see, e.g., State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 334 , 505 P3d 946 (2022) (relying on another Supreme Court case decided the same day to hold that it was plain error not to give a mental-state instruction on a particular element). 2026Error, in general, must be determined by the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial.” (Footnote omitted.)); see, e.g., State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 334 , 505 P3d 946 (2022) (relying on another Supreme Court case decided the same day to hold that it was plain error not to give a mental-state instruction on a particular element). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Owengreen2 sentences2024See State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 324 , 505 P3d 953 (2022) (the jury’s findings that the defendant knew that his conduct was assaultive and “readily capable of causing serious physical injury” indicated that it would not have found that he was unaware that his conduct created a risk of physical injury). 2024See State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 324 , 505 P3d 953 (2022) (the jury’s findings that the defendant knew that his conduct was assaultive and “readily capable of causing serious physical injury” indicated that it would not have found that he was unaware that his conduct created a risk of physical injury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shedrickgreen1 sentence2024See Shedrick, 370 Or at 270 n 2 (holding that the property-value element of theft carries a mental-state requirement, such that it was error not to give any mental-state instruction, but leaving open the question of the specific mental state required); State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 261-62 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (rejecting a plain-error argument regarding the specific mental state required for the property-value element of criminal mischief in the first or second degree). | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Soudersgreen2 sentences2012To determine “the extent to which the requisite mental states set out in ORS 30.866(l)(a) apply to the remaining parts of that statute,” id., the court looked to the text of that provision, which, again, provides: “(a) The [respondent] intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate *421 family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person!.]” ORS 30.866(l)(a). 2012As the Supreme Court explained, “The gravamen of [the respondent’s] argument * * * concerns the mental-state requirement set out in ORS 30.866(l)(a), that is, whether [the petitioner] proved that [the respondent] acted with a necessary mental state respecting his contacts with her.” Delgado, 334 Or at 131 . | 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. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2026“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). 2026“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). | 4 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Nicholson
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 58-61 . 2024Id. at 58-61 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2024In assessing whether omission of a mental-state instruction was harmless, “the issue is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental 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)). 2024In assessing whether omission of a mental-state instruction was harmless, “the issue is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental 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)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi
green
1 sentence2018City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi , 293 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.