acquittal bar in Oregon

2025The acquittal shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.” Cite as 340 Or App 625 (2025) 633 and we distinguished cases in which trial courts made pre- liminary and/or oral rulings.

2025The acquittal shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.” Cite as 340 Or App 625 (2025) 633 and we distinguished cases in which trial courts made pre- liminary and/or oral rulings.

2011We addressed that issue in State v. Sperry, 149 Or App 690 , 945 P2d 546 (1997), rev den, 328 Or 275 (1999), which is analogous to this case.

2011We addressed that issue in State v. Sperry, 149 Or App 690 , 945 P2d 546 (1997), rev den, 328 Or 275 (1999), which is analogous to this case.

2004City of Portland v. Miller, 62 Or App 145, 148 , 659 P2d 980 (1983); see also State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 24 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992) (describing standard).

2004City of Portland v. Miller, 62 Or App 145, 148 , 659 P2d 980 (1983); see also State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 24 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992) (describing standard).

2001It does provide that defendant’s “failure to comply with this condition may also subject Tdefendant to arrest for criminal trespass in the second degree per ORS 164.245.” (Emphasis added.) However, it does not say that violation necessarily will subject defendant to arrest for criminal trespass in the second degree. 4 Similarly, the state suggests that defendant is precluded from a “collateral attack” on the exclusion order in a criminal proceeding, for the reasons we rejected in State v. Riddell, 172 Or App 675 , 21 P3d 128 (2001), and urges us to reconsider our holding in that case.

2001It does provide that defendant’s “failure to comply with this condition may also subject Tdefendant to arrest for criminal trespass in the second degree per ORS 164.245.” (Emphasis added.) However, it does not say that violation necessarily will subject defendant to arrest for criminal trespass in the second degree. 4 Similarly, the state suggests that defendant is precluded from a “collateral attack” on the exclusion order in a criminal proceeding, for the reasons we rejected in State v. Riddell, 172 Or App 675 , 21 P3d 128 (2001), and urges us to reconsider our holding in that case.

1999We do so according to the familiar methodology of PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

1999We do so according to the familiar methodology of PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

1992We do not address the correctness of that assumption here, because we decide the claim on another ground. [8] OEC 401 provides: "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." [9] OEC 403 provides: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless pre

1992We do not address the correctness of that assumption here, because we decide the claim on another ground. [8] OEC 401 provides: "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." [9] OEC 403 provides: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless pre

1989State v. Buck, 239 Or 577, 578 , 398 P2d 176 , 399 P2d 367 (1965); State v. Chandler et al., 128 Or 204, 206 , 274 P 303 (1929).

1989State v. Buck, 239 Or 577, 578 , 398 P2d 176 , 399 P2d 367 (1965); State v. Chandler et al., 128 Or 204, 206 , 274 P 303 (1929).

1989State v. Buck, 239 Or 577, 578 , 398 P2d 176 , 399 P2d 367 (1965); State v. Chandler et al., 128 Or 204, 206 , 274 P 303 (1929).

1989State v. Buck, 239 Or 577, 578 , 398 P2d 176 , 399 P2d 367 (1965); State v. Chandler et al., 128 Or 204, 206 , 274 P 303 (1929).

1985ORS 131.535(1); 5 State v. Jones, 240 Or 546 , 402 P2d 738 (1965).

1985ORS 131.535(1); 5 State v. Jones, 240 Or 546 , 402 P2d 738 (1965).

1976State v. Nix, 7 Or App 383, 386 , 491 P2d 635 (1971).

1976State v. Nix, 7 Or App 383, 386 , 491 P2d 635 (1971).

1970If the court denies the motion, the defendant may thereafter present evidence in his defense.” The Supreme Court in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 , 87 S Ct 961 , 17 L Ed 2d 810 (1967), speaking through Mr. Justice Lusk, stated: “Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on several grounds.

1970If the court denies the motion, the defendant may thereafter present evidence in his defense.” The Supreme Court in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 , 87 S Ct 961 , 17 L Ed 2d 810 (1967), speaking through Mr. Justice Lusk, stated: “Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on several grounds.

1970If the court denies the motion, the defendant may thereafter present evidence in his defense.” The Supreme Court in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 , 87 S Ct 961 , 17 L Ed 2d 810 (1967), speaking through Mr. Justice Lusk, stated: “Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on several grounds.