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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2023–2026 8 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. Chitwoodgreen2 sentences2025A trial court is obligated to intervene during a pros- ecutor’s closing argument and declare a mistrial, notwith- standing the lack of any objection by the defendant, only when it is “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 312 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591 , ___ P3d ___ (discussing Chitwood standard). 2025A trial court is obligated to intervene during a pros- ecutor’s closing argument and declare a mistrial, notwith- standing the lack of any objection by the defendant, only when it is “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 312 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591 , ___ P3d ___ (discussing Chitwood standard). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Perezgreen2 sentences2025A trial court is obligated to intervene during a pros- ecutor’s closing argument and declare a mistrial, notwith- standing the lack of any objection by the defendant, only when it is “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 312 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591 , ___ P3d ___ (discussing Chitwood standard). 2025A trial court is obligated to intervene during a pros- ecutor’s closing argument and declare a mistrial, notwith- standing the lack of any objection by the defendant, only when it is “beyond dispute that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial as to have denied defendant a fair trial.” State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 312 , 518 P3d 903 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Perez, 373 Or 591 , ___ P3d ___ (discussing Chitwood standard). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2025In effect, the prosecutor redefined the burden of proof to include a requirement that the defendant 2 As we observed in State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89 , 95 n 1, 554 P3d 817 (2024), the current Chitwood framework presents analytical challenges, including insu- lating clear instances of prosecutorial misconduct from review on direct appeal and creating different plain error analyses for different types of plain errors with- out regard to the harm those errors cause. 2025In effect, the prosecutor redefined the burden of proof to include a requirement that the defendant 2 As we observed in State v. Smith, 334 Or App 89 , 95 n 1, 554 P3d 817 (2024), the current Chitwood framework presents analytical challenges, including insu- lating clear instances of prosecutorial misconduct from review on direct appeal and creating different plain error analyses for different types of plain errors with- out regard to the harm those errors cause. | 3 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2023We recently applied the Chitwood framework in State v. Montgomery, 327 Or App 655 , 536 P3d 627 (2023), where we considered whether repeated statements that the prosecutor made, during clos- ing and rebuttal arguments, that the defendant had lied were so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial. 2023We recently applied the Chitwood framework in State v. Montgomery, 327 Or App 655 , 536 P3d 627 (2023), where we considered whether repeated statements that the prosecutor made, during clos- ing and rebuttal arguments, that the defendant had lied were so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial. | 1 | 2023–2023 |