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 1 courts 2017–2026 5 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Jones, 296 Or App 553, 570-71 , 439 P3d 485 , rev den, 365 Or 557 (2019) (“It is defendant’s burden, as the party seeking reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error, to show some likelihood that the challenged evidence affected the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 2026See State v. Jones, 296 Or App 553, 570-71 , 439 P3d 485 , rev den, 365 Or 557 (2019) (“It is defendant’s burden, as the party seeking reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error, to show some likelihood that the challenged evidence affected the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 2 | 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. Simon
green
2 sentences2021In determining whether purportedly erroneous admission of evidence was harmless, we consider whether there is “some likelihood that the challenged evidence affected the verdict.” State v. Simon, 294 Or App 840, 849 , 433 P3d 385 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 502 (2019). 2019It is defendant's burden, as the party seeking reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error, "to show some *571 likelihood that the challenged evidence affected the verdict." Simon , 294 Or. | 3 | 2019–2021 |
State v. Wyatt
green
1 sentence2026To preserve a claim of evidentiary error, “a party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the [trial] court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” Id. at 343 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Hubbard
green
1 sentence2021The erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence is prejudicial, and therefore likely affects *658 the verdict, “if it denies the jury an adequate opportunity to assess the credibility of a witness whose credibility is important to the outcome of the trial.” Hubbard, 297 Or at 800 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021“A defendant who seeks reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error bears the burden to show a likelihood that the admission or exclusion of the challenged evidence affected the verdict.” State v. Smith, 307 Or App 144, 153 , 476 P3d 521 (2020). 2021“A defendant who seeks reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error bears the burden to show a likelihood that the admission or exclusion of the challenged evidence affected the verdict.” State v. Smith, 307 Or App 144, 153 , 476 P3d 521 (2020). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Department of Human Services v. K. A. H.
green
1 sentence2021A. H., 278 Or App at 290 ). *421 harmless error analysis to a claim of evidentiary error in a commitment hearing). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2020State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 2020State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gibson v. Oregon
green
1 sentence2017Any assessment of a lawyer’s decision not to raise a claim of evidentiary error on direct appeal from a criminal conviction must take into account whether the lawyer could reasonably conclude that we would affirm the conviction, notwithstanding any such error, because the error was harmless, that is, because “there [was] little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 576 , 113 P3d 423 , cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017In determining whether erroneously excluded evidence had little likelihood of affecting the verdict, we assess the excluded evidence “in light of other evidence in the record pertaining to that issue.” State v. Johnson, 225 Or App 545, 550 , 202 P3d 225 (2009). 2017In determining whether erroneously excluded evidence had little likelihood of affecting the verdict, we assess the excluded evidence “in light of other evidence in the record pertaining to that issue.” State v. Johnson, 225 Or App 545, 550 , 202 P3d 225 (2009). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2017Any assessment of a lawyer’s decision not to raise a claim of evidentiary error on direct appeal from a criminal conviction must take into account whether the lawyer could reasonably conclude that we would affirm the conviction, notwithstanding any such error, because the error was harmless, that is, because “there [was] little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 576 , 113 P3d 423 , cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005). 2017Any assessment of a lawyer’s decision not to raise a claim of evidentiary error on direct appeal from a criminal conviction must take into account whether the lawyer could reasonably conclude that we would affirm the conviction, notwithstanding any such error, because the error was harmless, that is, because “there [was] little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 576 , 113 P3d 423 , cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.