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 2004–2026 7 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. Cookgreen2 sentences2024Accord State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (“The transcript does not conclusively establish what transpired during those unrecorded discussions, and we cannot entertain a claim of plain error that requires us to speculate about what the par- ties might have accomplished while off the record.”). 2024Accord State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (“The transcript does not conclusively establish what transpired during those unrecorded discussions, and we cannot entertain a claim of plain error that requires us to speculate about what the par- ties might have accomplished while off the record.”). | 3 | 3 |
Muir v. NOOTHgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (concluding that an error that required speculation as to what the parties accom- plished while off the record precluded plain-error review); see also State v. Harbick, 234 Or App 699, 705 , 228 P3d 727 , rev den, 349 Or 171 (2010) (explaining that the appellant had not demonstrated that the trial court committed plain error by considering a guilty-except-for-insanity defense, because given the evidence of off-the-record proceedings in that particular case, “[i]t is at least possible that, following the competency hearing, the parties 2023See State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (concluding that an error that required speculation as to what the parties accom- plished while off the record precluded plain-error review); see also State v. Harbick, 234 Or App 699, 705 , 228 P3d 727 , rev den, 349 Or 171 (2010) (explaining that the appellant had not demonstrated that the trial court committed plain error by considering a guilty-except-for-insanity defense, because given the evidence of off-the-record proceedings in that particular case, “[i]t is at least possible that, following the competency hearing, the parties | 3 | 3 |
State v. HARBICKgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (concluding that an error that required speculation as to what the parties accom- plished while off the record precluded plain-error review); see also State v. Harbick, 234 Or App 699, 705 , 228 P3d 727 , rev den, 349 Or 171 (2010) (explaining that the appellant had not demonstrated that the trial court committed plain error by considering a guilty-except-for-insanity defense, because given the evidence of off-the-record proceedings in that particular case, “[i]t is at least possible that, following the competency hearing, the parties 2023See State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 780 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (concluding that an error that required speculation as to what the parties accom- plished while off the record precluded plain-error review); see also State v. Harbick, 234 Or App 699, 705 , 228 P3d 727 , rev den, 349 Or 171 (2010) (explaining that the appellant had not demonstrated that the trial court committed plain error by considering a guilty-except-for-insanity defense, because given the evidence of off-the-record proceedings in that particular case, “[i]t is at least possible that, following the competency hearing, the parties | 3 | 3 |
State v. Chitwoodgreen2 sentences2025In Chitwood, in considering whether improper statements by the prosecutor during closing argument war- ranted reversal, the Supreme Court stated that “the stan- dard for our review of a preserved error and for our review of a claim of plain error is identical.” 370 Or at 312 . 2025It then explained that, in reviewing a claim of plain error, “as in the context of a preserved error, it is not enough for a defendant to show that a prosecutor’s comments were improper,” and went on to conclude that “a defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wyattgreen2 sentences2004See Wyatt , 331 Or at 346 (describing procedural options). 2004See Wyatt, 331 Or at 346 (describing procedural options). | 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. Perez
green
2 sentences2025Likewise, in Perez, the court stated that “part of [the] rationale in Chitwood for requiring a defendant [asserting plain error] to demonstrate that ‘an instruction to disregard’ the prosecutor’s comments would not have been ‘sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial’ was that a defendant would need to make an equivalent showing to be entitled to reversal in the preserved context,” but noted that that is not always the case: A “defendant whose timely request for a curative instruction is denied may, in fac 2025Likewise, in Perez, the court stated that “part of [the] rationale in Chitwood for requiring a defendant [asserting plain error] to demonstrate that ‘an instruction to disregard’ the prosecutor’s comments would not have been ‘sufficiently curative to assure the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances, that the defendant received a fair trial’ was that a defendant would need to make an equivalent showing to be entitled to reversal in the preserved context,” but noted that that is not always the case: A “defendant whose timely request for a curative instruction is denied may, in fac | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Gornick
green
2 sentences2026The “strategic choice” issue traces back to our decision in State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 , 130 P3d 780 (2006), so we will begin with that case and discuss it in some detail. 2026The “strategic choice” issue traces back to our decision in State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 , 130 P3d 780 (2006), so we will begin with that case and discuss it in some detail. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.