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 3 courts 2015–2025 3 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. Ashkinsgreen2 sentences2025State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659 , 357 P3d 490 (2015). 2020Contesting this conclusion, the state argues that, “[i]n the cases that defendant cites as presenting multiple occurrences of the charged crime, the need for a concurrence instruction arose because the record would have allowed multiple convictions of the charged crime, but the state had charged only a single count.” Indeed, many cases describe the scenario requiring a concurrence instruction as “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occur- rences of that crime.” Pipkin, 354 Or at 517 ; see also Ashkins, 357 Or at | 1 | 4 |
State v. Teaguesgreen1 sentence2020Contesting this conclusion, the state argues that, “[i]n the cases that defendant cites as presenting multiple occurrences of the charged crime, the need for a concurrence instruction arose because the record would have allowed multiple convictions of the charged crime, but the state had charged only a single count.” Indeed, many cases describe the scenario requiring a concurrence instruction as “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occur- rences of that crime.” Pipkin, 354 Or at 517 ; see also Ashkins, 357 Or at | 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. Pipkin
green
2 sentences2021The other situation occurs ‘when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence per- mits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.’ Id. at 517 . 2020Oregon distinguishes two types of situations requir- ing a concurrence instruction: (1) “when a statute defines one crime but specifies alternative ways in which that crime can be committed” and (2) “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.” State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 516-17 , 316 P3d 255 (2013). | 7 | 2015–2021 |
Hettler v. Kahn
green
1 sentence2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hilgert v. Mark Twain/Mercantile Bank
green
1 sentence2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hale
green
2 sentences2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). 2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lotches
green
2 sentences2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). 2016In the latter circumstance — the circumstance that petitioner asserts existed here with respect to some or all of the coercion counts — “a defendant can ask for an instruction requiring jury concurrence on one of the several occurrences that the record discloses.” Id. (citing State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 , 75 P3d 448 (2003), cert den, 541 US 942 (2004); and State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 , 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001)) (emphasis added). | 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.