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.
9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 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. Harbertsgreen2 sentences2002“In cases in which inquiry into impairment of the defense is required, a defendant needs to show only that the delay caused a ‘reasonable possibility of prejudice’ to the ability to prepare a defense.” Harberts, 331 Or at 86 (citing State v. Ivory, 278 Or 499, 508 , 564 P2d 1039 (1977)). 2001Rather, “[i]n cases in which inquiry into impairment of the defense is required, a defendant need only show that the delay caused a ‘reasonable possibility of prejudice’ to the ability to prepare a defense.” 331 Or at 86 (quoting Ivory, 278 Or at 508 ) (emphasis added). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Mendegreen2 sentences2000"We speak of `actual' prejudice because, as a practical matter, and despite [language from Haynes suggesting that prejudice might not be considered under the Oregon Constitution], our prior cases all have required in effect that there be some degree of actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense to the charge in order to establish a constitutional violation * * *." 304 Or. at 22-23, 741 P.2d 496 (emphasis added). 2000The court explained that it used the term “actual” prejudice in that context because, “as a practical matter, and despite the foi'egoing language from Haynes , our prior cases all have required in effect that there be some degree of actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense to the charge in order to establish a constitutional violation of sufficient magnitude to justify dismissal of the criminal charge.” Id. at 23 (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Application of Haynesgreen2 sentences2007Harberts, *608 331 Or at 86 (quoting State v. Ivory, 278 Or 499, 508 , 564 P2d 1039 (1977)); see also Haynes, 290 Or at 82 (indicating that something more “concrete” is called for if trial has occurred). 1987See, e.g., State v. Dykast, supra, 300 Or at 378 (18 2/3-month delay did not impair the defendant’s ability to defend the charges against him; his additional anxiety and stress were not so great as to require dismissal); Haynes v. Burks, supra, 290 Or at 90 , (dismissal not warranted where accused, incarcerated for 2 1/2 years while awaiting trial, failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the delay would prejudice her defense); State v. Ivory, supra, 278 Or at 506 , (10 1/2 month delay prior to arrest on secret indictment “not manifestly excessive or purposely caused”; proof of loss o | 1 | 2 |
Pringle Square, LLC v. Berrey Family, LLCgreen1 sentence2021See id. (discussing that prejudice could occur where new claims would impair the ability to prepare a defense by requiring new or extensive efforts to address). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dykastgreen1 sentence1987See, e.g., State v. Dykast, supra, 300 Or at 378 (18 2/3-month delay did not impair the defendant’s ability to defend the charges against him; his additional anxiety and stress were not so great as to require dismissal); Haynes v. Burks, supra, 290 Or at 90 , (dismissal not warranted where accused, incarcerated for 2 1/2 years while awaiting trial, failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the delay would prejudice her defense); State v. Ivory, supra, 278 Or at 506 , (10 1/2 month delay prior to arrest on secret indictment “not manifestly excessive or purposely caused”; proof of loss o | 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. Ivory
green
2 sentences2004In determining whether the delay caused prejudice to the defense, the proper inquiry is *172 whether “the delay caused a ‘reasonable possibility of prejudice’ to the ability to prepare a defense.” Id. at 86 (quoting Ivory, 278 Or at 508 ). 2004In determining whether the delay caused prejudice to the defense, the proper inquiry is *172 whether “the delay caused a ‘reasonable possibility of prejudice’ to the ability to prepare a defense.” Id. at 86 (quoting Ivory, 278 Or at 508 ). | 4 | 1987–2007 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 508, 92 S.Ct. 2182 . [8] Although this court endorsed the Barker analysis in Ivory, it subsequently acknowledged that not all the Barker analysis is appropriate for evaluating claims under Article I, section 10. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Garcia-Plascencia
green
2 sentences1998Mende, 304 Or at 23 ; State v. Garcia-Plascencia, 148 Or App 318, 324 , 939 P2d 641 , rev den 326 Or 58 (1997). 1998Mende, 304 Or at 23 ; State v. Garcia-Plascencia, 148 Or App 318, 324 , 939 P2d 641 , rev den 326 Or 58 (1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Vawter
green
2 sentences1987See, e.g., State v. Dykast, supra, 300 Or at 378 (18 2/3-month delay did not impair the defendant’s ability to defend the charges against him; his additional anxiety and stress were not so great as to require dismissal); Haynes v. Burks, supra, 290 Or at 90 , (dismissal not warranted where accused, incarcerated for 2 1/2 years while awaiting trial, failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the delay would prejudice her defense); State v. Ivory, supra, 278 Or at 506 , (10 1/2 month delay prior to arrest on secret indictment “not manifestly excessive or purposely caused”; proof of loss o 1987See, e.g., State v. Dykast, supra, 300 Or at 378 (18 2/3-month delay did not impair the defendant’s ability to defend the charges against him; his additional anxiety and stress were not so great as to require dismissal); Haynes v. Burks, supra, 290 Or at 90 , (dismissal not warranted where accused, incarcerated for 2 1/2 years while awaiting trial, failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the delay would prejudice her defense); State v. Ivory, supra, 278 Or at 506 , (10 1/2 month delay prior to arrest on secret indictment “not manifestly excessive or purposely caused”; proof of loss o | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.