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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 5 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. Grahamgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Graham, 333 Or App 228, 230 , 551 P3d 998 , rev den, 372 Or 787 (2024) (explaining that generally an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal; however, under ORAP 5.45(1), we have discretion to review for plain errors). 2026See State v. Graham, 333 Or App 228, 230 , 551 P3d 998 , rev den, 372 Or 787 (2024) (explaining that generally an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal; however, under ORAP 5.45(1), we have discretion to review for plain errors). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dilallogreen2 sentences2021This case is not, as the state suggests, controlled by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 345-46 , 478 P3d 509 (2020), in which the court concluded that although the trial court plainly erred in giving a nonunanimous jury instruction, it would not address the error as plain error where the defendant did not object to the jury instruction and the jury was not polled. 2021This case is not, as the state suggests, controlled by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 345-46 , 478 P3d 509 (2020), in which the court concluded that although the trial court plainly erred in giving a nonunanimous jury instruction, it would not address the error as plain error where the defendant did not object to the jury instruction and the jury was not polled. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Revettegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Revette, 318 Or App 749, 764-65 , 508 P3d 985 , rev den, 370 Or 214 (2022) (error not plain when defendant might have had a strategic reason not to object). 2024See State v. Revette, 318 Or App 749, 764-65 , 508 P3d 985 , rev den, 370 Or 214 (2022) (error not plain when defendant might have had a strategic reason not to object). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019See ORAP 5.45(1) ; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. , 312 Or. 376 , 382, 823 P.2d 956 (1991). 2019See ORAP 5.45(1) ; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. , 312 Or. 376 , 382, 823 P.2d 956 (1991). | 3 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Kellison
green
1 sentence2024See State v. Kellison, 289 Or App 55 , 407 P3d 978 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 665 (2018) (plain error to impose compensatory fine in addition to punitive fine). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2021Rather, as we explained in State v. Scott, 309 Or App 615, 620-21 , 483 P3d 701 (2021), when the unanimous verdict instruction issue has been preserved and the erroneous instruction given, it is then incumbent on the party receiving the benefit of the constitutional error—the state—to demonstrate harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. 2021Rather, as we explained in State v. Scott, 309 Or App 615, 620-21 , 483 P3d 701 (2021), when the unanimous verdict instruction issue has been preserved and the erroneous instruction given, it is then incumbent on the party receiving the benefit of the constitutional error—the state—to demonstrate harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2019See ORAP 5.45(1) (providing for discretionary plain error review). 12 Defendant does not reassert his argument that his statements were inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment; indeed, he acknowledges that he conceded that point at the suppression hearing below. *773 [that inquiry] is on the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a factfinder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Oliphant
green
2 sentences2018As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Oliphant , 347 Or. 175 , 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009), in cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding " an officer's right to use force * * * in effectuating an arrest" inserts "an irrelevant issue-the arresting officers' actual state of mind-into the jury's deliberations concerning [the defendant's] claim of self-defense." (Emphasis in original.) In State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 630-31, 317 P.3d 889 (2013), the court held that instructing a jury in violation of Oliphant constitutes plain error and, on r 2018As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Oliphant , 347 Or. 175 , 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009), in cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding " an officer's right to use force * * * in effectuating an arrest" inserts "an irrelevant issue-the arresting officers' actual state of mind-into the jury's deliberations concerning [the defendant's] claim of self-defense." (Emphasis in original.) In State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 630-31, 317 P.3d 889 (2013), the court held that instructing a jury in violation of Oliphant constitutes plain error and, on r | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Vanornum
green
2 sentences2018As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Oliphant , 347 Or. 175 , 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009), in cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding " an officer's right to use force * * * in effectuating an arrest" inserts "an irrelevant issue-the arresting officers' actual state of mind-into the jury's deliberations concerning [the defendant's] claim of self-defense." (Emphasis in original.) In State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 630-31, 317 P.3d 889 (2013), the court held that instructing a jury in violation of Oliphant constitutes plain error and, on r 2018As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Oliphant , 347 Or. 175 , 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009), in cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding " an officer's right to use force * * * in effectuating an arrest" inserts "an irrelevant issue-the arresting officers' actual state of mind-into the jury's deliberations concerning [the defendant's] claim of self-defense." (Emphasis in original.) In State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 630-31, 317 P.3d 889 (2013), the court held that instructing a jury in violation of Oliphant constitutes plain error and, on r | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Coverstone
green
2 sentences2016See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing appellate review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error when it “fail[s] to comply with the statutory requirement that, before imposing attorney fees, it find that defendant ‘is or may be able to’ pay the fees”). 2016See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing appellate review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error when it “fail[s] to comply with the statutory requirement that, before imposing attorney fees, it find that defendant ‘is or may be able to’ pay the fees”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.