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 2005–2024 4 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State v. Ashkinsgreen2 sentences2024The fac- tual circumstances of this case—which involved two victims Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 652 (2024) 655 testifying in broad terms to many years of repeated abuse— indicate that the jury would not “have reached one conclu- sion as to some of the occurrences but a different conclusion as to others.” See State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 662-63 , 357 P3d 490 (2015) (concluding that the lack of a concurrence instruction was harmless when the evidence from a child victim of multiple years of abuse was “nonspecific and undif- ferentiated” and thus “there was nothing to indicate that * * * 2024The fac- tual circumstances of this case—which involved two victims Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 652 (2024) 655 testifying in broad terms to many years of repeated abuse— indicate that the jury would not “have reached one conclu- sion as to some of the occurrences but a different conclusion as to others.” See State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 662-63 , 357 P3d 490 (2015) (concluding that the lack of a concurrence instruction was harmless when the evidence from a child victim of multiple years of abuse was “nonspecific and undif- ferentiated” and thus “there was nothing to indicate that * * * | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496 , 106 P3d 670 , adh’d to on recons as modified, 199 Or App 521 , 112 P3d 433 (2005). 2005See State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496 , 106 P3d 670 , adh’d to on recons as modified, 199 Or App 521 , 112 P3d 433 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ignacio Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496 , 106 P3d 670 , adh’d to on recons as modified, 199 Or App 521 , 112 P3d 433 (2005). 2005See State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496 , 106 P3d 670 , adh’d to on recons as modified, 199 Or App 521 , 112 P3d 433 (2005). | 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. Hale
green
2 sentences2015We discuss those cases below because the state urges us to adopt a variation on the rationale of those cases here. 6 At oral argument, the state argued that the touchstone of our standard of review should be whether the lack of a concurrence instruction would cause “jury confusion.” See, e.g., State v. Hale, 335 Or 612, 627 , 75 P3d 448 (2003) (noting that lack of concurrence instruction could cause “jury confusion”). 2015We discuss those cases below because the state urges us to adopt a variation on the rationale of those cases here. 6 At oral argument, the state argued that the touchstone of our standard of review should be whether the lack of a concurrence instruction would cause “jury confusion.” See, e.g., State v. Hale, 335 Or 612, 627 , 75 P3d 448 (2003) (noting that lack of concurrence instruction could cause “jury confusion”). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Brunkal v. Cain
neutral
1 sentence2024The fac- tual circumstances of this case—which involved two victims Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 652 (2024) 655 testifying in broad terms to many years of repeated abuse— indicate that the jury would not “have reached one conclu- sion as to some of the occurrences but a different conclusion as to others.” See State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 662-63 , 357 P3d 490 (2015) (concluding that the lack of a concurrence instruction was harmless when the evidence from a child victim of multiple years of abuse was “nonspecific and undif- ferentiated” and thus “there was nothing to indicate that * * * | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2022Phillips, 354 Or at 613 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rodriguez-Castillo
green
1 sentence2019Id . at 500-01, 151 P.3d 931 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lichau v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gable v. State
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Montez v. Czerniak
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Montez v. Czerniak
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Thompson v. Belleque
green
2 sentences2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice 2016ORS 138.530(l)(a) provides for post-conviction relief when there has been a “substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction * * * of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.” To establish an entitlement to relief under the Oregon Constitution for inadequate assistance of counsel, 8 a petitioner “must demonstrate two things: that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that he suffered prejudice | 1 | 2016–2016 |