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 2 courts 2007–2019 0 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. Woodmangreen2 sentences2014See State v. Woodman, 341 Or 105, 118 , 138 P3d 1 (2006) (so stating). 2014See State v. Woodman, 341 Or 105, 118 , 138 P3d 1 (2006) (so stating). | 2 | 2 |
Flansberg v. Paulsongreen2 sentences2008See Flansberg v. Paulson, 239 Or 610, 612 , 399 P2d 356 (1965); Hall, 193 Or at 636-37 . 2008See Flansberg v. Paulson, 239 Or 610, 612 , 399 P2d 356 (1965); Hall, 193 Or at 636-37 . | 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. Crosby
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 432 . 2011Id. at 431-32 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Clarke
green
1 sentence2019Curry County Circuit Court 15CR48691; A163609 451 P3d 1022 During defendant’s closing argument in his trial for driving under the influ- ence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010(4), the trial court sustained the state’s objec- tion to defendant’s mischaracterization of the evidence, then offered a clarifying instruction to the jury. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2018App. 428 , 431-32, 300 P.3d 281 (2013) (defense counsel failed to preserve an issue by withdrawing his request for a clarifying instruction in colloquy). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Oliphant
green
2 sentences2014On appeal of the resulting judgment of conviction, defendant asserts that the court’s instruction in response to the question was erroneous. 2 Specifically, citing State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 , 218 P3d 1281 (2009), defendant contends that the court erred because “the court’s clarifying instruction informed the jury that the victim’s use of force was lawful if the victim reasonably believed defendant was committing a trespass” but that “whether the victim believed her use of force was lawful was irrelevant”; rather, the “only consideration for the jury was whether defendant believed the victi 2014On appeal of the resulting judgment of conviction, defendant asserts that the court’s instruction in response to the question was erroneous. 2 Specifically, citing State v. Oliphant, 347 Or 175 , 218 P3d 1281 (2009), defendant contends that the court erred because “the court’s clarifying instruction informed the jury that the victim’s use of force was lawful if the victim reasonably believed defendant was committing a trespass” but that “whether the victim believed her use of force was lawful was irrelevant”; rather, the “only consideration for the jury was whether defendant believed the victi | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hall v. CORNETT
green
1 sentence2008See Flansberg v. Paulson, 239 Or 610, 612 , 399 P2d 356 (1965); Hall, 193 Or at 636-37 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Crosby
neutral
2 sentences2007The Court of Appeals held, however, that the clarifying instruction was not erroneous by itself because “the [trial] court refrained from giving further definition to the term ‘circumstances’ and informed the jury to return to the instructions given at the outset.” Id. at 81 . 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.