constitutional double jeopardy standard (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

constitutional double jeopardy standard in Oregon

7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gilbertgreen
or · 1978 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980See State v. Gilbert, 281 Or 101 , 574 P2d 313 (1978).

1980See State v. Gilbert, 281 Or 101 , 574 P2d 313 (1978).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brown green
or · 1972
2 sentences

2022In State v. Brown, the Supreme Court summarized the requirements of a constitutional double jeopardy challenge, which provides that: “[A] second prosecution is for the ‘same offense’ and is prohibited if (1) the charges arise out of the same act or transaction, and (2) the charges could have been tried in the same court, and (3) the prosecutor knew or reasonably should have known of the facts relevant to the second charge at the time of the original prosecution.” 262 Or 442, 458 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

2022In State v. Brown, the Supreme Court summarized the requirements of a constitutional double jeopardy challenge, which provides that: “[A] second prosecution is for the ‘same offense’ and is prohibited if (1) the charges arise out of the same act or transaction, and (2) the charges could have been tried in the same court, and (3) the prosecutor knew or reasonably should have known of the facts relevant to the second charge at the time of the original prosecution.” 262 Or 442, 458 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

21978–2022
State v. Talbert green
orctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2004Defendant would therefore appear to have presented and preserved a constitutional double jeopardy defense, even without further citation to case law. 3 The state and the majority rely on State v. Talbert, 153 Or App 594, 600 , 958 P2d 902 (1998), in which we stated: “Defendant cited Article I, section 12, in his memorandum to the trial court but cited no Article I, section 12, cases.

2004Defendant would therefore appear to have presented and preserved a constitutional double jeopardy defense, even without further citation to case law. 3 The state and the majority rely on State v. Talbert, 153 Or App 594, 600 , 958 P2d 902 (1998), in which we stated: “Defendant cited Article I, section 12, in his memorandum to the trial court but cited no Article I, section 12, cases.

12004–2004
State v. Delker green
orctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

12001–2001
State v. Harris neutral
orctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

12001–2001
State v. Hammang green
or · 1975
2 sentences

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

12001–2001
State v. Garnier neutral
orctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

12001–2001
State v. Lyons green
orctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

2001ORS 131.515(1) sets out the constitutional double jeopardy standard prohibiting more than one prosecution for the “same offense.” ORS 131.515(2) has been said to provide greater legislative protection than the constitution, barring separate prosecutions, not only for the same offense but for all known charges arising out of the same criminal episode. 2 State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 757 , 534 P2d 501 (1975); 3 State v. Garnier, 171 Or App 564 , 16 P3d 1175 (2000); State v. Harris, 167 Or App 360, 362 , 5 P3d 1113 (2000); State v. Lyons, 161 Or App 355 , 985 P2d 204 (1999); 4 State v. Delker, 12

12001–2001
State v. Thompson green
or · 1983
2 sentences

1989Assuming that a constitutional double jeopardy analysis applies, see State v. Thompson, 294 Or 528 , 659 P2d 383 (1983), the contempts did not constitute the same offense.

1989Assuming that a constitutional double jeopardy analysis applies, see State v. Thompson, 294 Or 528 , 659 P2d 383 (1983), the contempts did not constitute the same offense.

11989–1989
State v. Farley green
or · 1986
2 sentences

1989See ORS 131.505(4); State v. Farley, 301 Or 668, 672 , 725 P2d 359 (1986).

1989See ORS 131.505(4); State v. Farley, 301 Or 668, 672 , 725 P2d 359 (1986).

11989–1989
State v. Welch green
or · 1973
2 sentences

1978The Oregon Supreme Court has previously suggested that the failure to distinguish between double jeopardy problems and other situations involving whether given conduct constitutes more than one crime is a "boner.” State v. Welch, 264 Or 388, 391 , 505 P2d 910 (1973), citing Fisher, Double Jeopardy: Six *126 Common Boners Summarized, 15 UCLA L Rev 81 (1967).

1978The Oregon Supreme Court has previously suggested that the failure to distinguish between double jeopardy problems and other situations involving whether given conduct constitutes more than one crime is a "boner.” State v. Welch, 264 Or 388, 391 , 505 P2d 910 (1973), citing Fisher, Double Jeopardy: Six *126 Common Boners Summarized, 15 UCLA L Rev 81 (1967).

11978–1978
Brown v. Multnomah County District Court green
or · 1977
2 sentences

1978Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), which, considered together with the constitutional double jeopardy rule of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972), could lead to a contrary result when the traffic offense is drunk driving.

1978Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), which, considered together with the constitutional double jeopardy rule of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972), could lead to a contrary result when the traffic offense is drunk driving.

11978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.525 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.505 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 22 (1979–2025) MI 7 (2000–2023) OR 7 (1978–2022) CA 6 (1984–2015) FL 6 (1982–2025) VA 5 (1992–2012) IL 4 (2005–2005) GA 4 (2004–2020) IN 3 (2005–2020) IA 3 (1994–2023) NE 3 (1986–1995) CO 2 (1979–2017) WI 2 (2009–2022) TX 2 (2012–2018) MT 2 (2010–2017) OH 2 (2004–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check