52 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 16 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. Donovangreen2 sentences2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th 2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th | 3 | 3 |
Green v. Frankegreen2 sentences2024First, the post-conviction court’s standard required petitioner to show that the outcome of the probation- revocation hearing would have changed: “Petitioner has failed to show that any additional ‘mitigation’ evidence would have changed the outcome of the probation viola- tion hearing.” (Emphasis added.) But, to establish prej- udice for purposes of Article I, section 11, and the federal constitution, a post-conviction petitioner need only show that counsel’s (alleged) deficiency “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.” Green, 357 Or at 323 (inter- nal quotation marks and emphas 2024First, the post-conviction court’s standard required petitioner to show that the outcome of the probation- revocation hearing would have changed: “Petitioner has failed to show that any additional ‘mitigation’ evidence would have changed the outcome of the probation viola- tion hearing.” (Emphasis added.) But, to establish prej- udice for purposes of Article I, section 11, and the federal constitution, a post-conviction petitioner need only show that counsel’s (alleged) deficiency “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.” Green, 357 Or at 323 (inter- nal quotation marks and emphas | 2 | 2 |
In Re GAULTgreen2 sentences2008See In re Gault, 387 US 1, 36 , 87 S Ct 1428 , 18 L Ed 2d 527 (1967) (“A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ ”); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 369 , 812 P2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). 2008See In re Gault, 387 US 1, 36 , 87 S Ct 1428 , 18 L Ed 2d 527 (1967) (“A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ ”); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 369 , 812 P2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2021State v. Gonzalez, 212 Or App 1, 5 , 157 P3d 266 (2007). 2021State v. Gonzalez, 212 Or App 1, 5 , 157 P3d 266 (2007). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2021Consistent with those principles, we outlined a four-factor balancing test for determining whether “good cause” exists for denying confrontation during a probation revocation hearing in State v. Johnson, 221 Or App 394, 401 , 190 P3d 455 (2008): “(1) the importance of the evidence to the court’s finding; (2) the probationer’s opportunity to refute the evidence; (3) the difficulty and expense of obtain- ing witnesses; and (4) traditional indicia of reliability borne by the evidence.” The first two factors assess the strength of a defendant’s interest in confrontation, which is then weighed agai 2021Consistent with those principles, we outlined a four-factor balancing test for determining whether “good cause” exists for denying confrontation during a probation revocation hearing in State v. Johnson, 221 Or App 394, 401 , 190 P3d 455 (2008): “(1) the importance of the evidence to the court’s finding; (2) the probationer’s opportunity to refute the evidence; (3) the difficulty and expense of obtain- ing witnesses; and (4) traditional indicia of reliability borne by the evidence.” The first two factors assess the strength of a defendant’s interest in confrontation, which is then weighed agai | 1 | 3 |
State v. Busbygreen2 sentences2008See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) ("A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found `delinquent' and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] `requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.'"); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or.App. 368, 369 , 812 P.2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). 2008See In re Gault, 387 US 1, 36 , 87 S Ct 1428 , 18 L Ed 2d 527 (1967) (“A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ ”); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 369 , 812 P2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Busbygreen2 sentences2008See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) ("A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found `delinquent' and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] `requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.'"); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or.App. 368, 369 , 812 P.2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). 2008See In re Gault, 387 US 1, 36 , 87 S Ct 1428 , 18 L Ed 2d 527 (1967) (“A proceeding where the issue is whether the [youth] will be found ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution. * * * The [youth] ‘requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ ”); cf. State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 369 , 812 P2d 14 (1991) (a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dowtygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 772 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (declining to reach this “significant and 314 State v. Moran as-yet-unresolved question”); see also State v. Martin, 370 Or 653, 657-58 , 522 P3d 841 (2022) (reviewing the legal issue of a constitutional bar to admissibility of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation hearing for errors of law). 2025See State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 772 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (declining to reach this “significant and 314 State v. Moran as-yet-unresolved question”); see also State v. Martin, 370 Or 653, 657-58 , 522 P3d 841 (2022) (reviewing the legal issue of a constitutional bar to admissibility of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation hearing for errors of law). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2025See State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 772 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (declining to reach this “significant and 314 State v. Moran as-yet-unresolved question”); see also State v. Martin, 370 Or 653, 657-58 , 522 P3d 841 (2022) (reviewing the legal issue of a constitutional bar to admissibility of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation hearing for errors of law). 2025See State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 772 , 452 P3d 983 (2019) (declining to reach this “significant and 314 State v. Moran as-yet-unresolved question”); see also State v. Martin, 370 Or 653, 657-58 , 522 P3d 841 (2022) (reviewing the legal issue of a constitutional bar to admissibility of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation hearing for errors of law). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2014The text of former ORS 137.550 remained substantially unchanged between the time the court considered it in State v. Stevens, 253 Or 563 , 456 P2d 494 (1969), and the enactment of the sentencing guidelines in 1989. 2014The text of former ORS 137.550 remained substantially unchanged between the time the court considered it in State v. Stevens, 253 Or 563 , 456 P2d 494 (1969), and the enactment of the sentencing guidelines in 1989. | 1 | 2 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences2008Morrissey, 408 US at 489 ; Gagnon, 411 US at 789 . 2007See, e.g., Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778, 782 , 93 S Ct 1756 , 36 L Ed 2d 656 (1973) (revocation proceeding “is not a stage of a criminal prosecution”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vondehngreen1 sentence2025That determination is premised on the under- standing that the exclusionary rule serves the purpose of preserving a defendant’s rights “to the same extent as if the government’s officers had stayed within the law,” Vondehn, 348 Or at 473 (internal quotation marks omitted), and that a probation revocation hearing implicates a liberty interest analogous to the liberty interest at stake in a criminal pros- ecution. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nealgreen1 sentence2016United States v. Tham, 884 F2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir 1989); United States v. Neal, 512 F3d 427, 436 (7th Cir 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wibbensgreen1 sentence2013Moreover, we have acknowledged that there are instances where it may be appropriate for a trial court to admit “conventional substitutes for live testimony, including affidavits, depositions, and documentary evidence.” Wibbens, 238 Or App at 741 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Carlile v. Frostgreen | 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. Baxley
green
2 sentences2025ORS 131.045 permits a person to appear “in a crim- inal proceeding” by “simultaneous electronic transmission.” As a preliminary matter, a probation hearing is a “crimi- nal proceeding” for purposes of ORS 131.045 because it is a “proceeding which * * * occurs in court in connection with Cite as 344 Or App 111 (2025) 113 a prospective, pending or completed criminal action.” ORS 131.005(7); ORS 131.045(1)(a) (“ ‘[c]riminal proceeding’ has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005”); State v. Baxley, 27 Or App 73, 76 , 555 P2d 782 (1976) (“A probation revocation hearing is a criminal proceeding, 2025ORS 131.045 permits a person to appear “in a crim- inal proceeding” by “simultaneous electronic transmission.” As a preliminary matter, a probation hearing is a “crimi- nal proceeding” for purposes of ORS 131.045 because it is a “proceeding which * * * occurs in court in connection with Cite as 344 Or App 111 (2025) 113 a prospective, pending or completed criminal action.” ORS 131.005(7); ORS 131.045(1)(a) (“ ‘[c]riminal proceeding’ has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005”); State v. Baxley, 27 Or App 73, 76 , 555 P2d 782 (1976) (“A probation revocation hearing is a criminal proceeding, | 5 | 1978–2025 |
Barker v. Ireland
green
2 sentences1971There, anticipating Mempa v. Rhay, 389 US 128 , 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 (1967), in holding that in the absence of express waiver counsel is required as a part of due process at a probation revocation hearing, the Oregon court said: “In Barker v. Ireland, 238 Or 1 , 392 P2d 769 (1964), we took note of the duty of the trial court under ORS 137.550 (2) to make a factual determination. 1971There, anticipating Mempa v. Rhay, 389 US 128 , 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 (1967), in holding that in the absence of express waiver counsel is required as a part of due process at a probation revocation hearing, the Oregon court said: “In Barker v. Ireland, 238 Or 1 , 392 P2d 769 (1964), we took note of the duty of the trial court under ORS 137.550 (2) to make a factual determination. | 3 | 1971–1988 |
State v. Nettles
green
2 sentences1982In State v. Fields, 49 Or App 1033 , 621 P2d 651 (1980) , rev’d on other grounds, 291 Or 872 , 635 P2d 376 (1981) , 4 we held that statements obtained in violation of Miranda are nonetheless admissible in a probation revocation hearing under State v. Nettles, 287 Or 131 , 597 P2d 1243 (1979). 1982In State v. Fields, 49 Or App 1033 , 621 P2d 651 (1980) , rev’d on other grounds, 291 Or 872 , 635 P2d 376 (1981) , 4 we held that statements obtained in violation of Miranda are nonetheless admissible in a probation revocation hearing under State v. Nettles, 287 Or 131 , 597 P2d 1243 (1979). | 3 | 1980–1985 |
State v. Gallup
neutral
2 sentences2025At the probation revocation hearing, defendant’s probation officer testified that, upon entering defendant’s residence for a home visit, she saw “a large knife sticking out of the floorboard of the home.” Inside the house, she observed numerous knives, simulated Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 295 (2025) 297 weapons, and ammunition. 2025At the probation revocation hearing, defendant’s probation officer testified that, upon entering defendant’s residence for a home visit, she saw “a large knife sticking out of the floorboard of the home.” Inside the house, she observed numerous knives, simulated Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 295 (2025) 297 weapons, and ammunition. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2025ORS 131.045 permits a person to appear “in a crim- inal proceeding” by “simultaneous electronic transmission.” As a preliminary matter, a probation hearing is a “crimi- nal proceeding” for purposes of ORS 131.045 because it is a “proceeding which * * * occurs in court in connection with Cite as 344 Or App 111 (2025) 113 a prospective, pending or completed criminal action.” ORS 131.005(7); ORS 131.045(1)(a) (“ ‘[c]riminal proceeding’ has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005”); State v. Baxley, 27 Or App 73, 76 , 555 P2d 782 (1976) (“A probation revocation hearing is a criminal proceeding, 2025ORS 131.045 permits a person to appear “in a crim- inal proceeding” by “simultaneous electronic transmission.” As a preliminary matter, a probation hearing is a “crimi- nal proceeding” for purposes of ORS 131.045 because it is a “proceeding which * * * occurs in court in connection with Cite as 344 Or App 111 (2025) 113 a prospective, pending or completed criminal action.” ORS 131.005(7); ORS 131.045(1)(a) (“ ‘[c]riminal proceeding’ has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005”); State v. Baxley, 27 Or App 73, 76 , 555 P2d 782 (1976) (“A probation revocation hearing is a criminal proceeding, | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cunningham
neutral
2 sentences2025On that day, defendant called his supervising Cite as 345 Or App 546 (2025) 549 officer around 3:00 in the afternoon and explained that he was “stuck” in a nearby town, that he had been there for a couple days, and that he was unable to get to the office because he did not have a ride to the probation office. 2025On that day, defendant called his supervising Cite as 345 Or App 546 (2025) 549 officer around 3:00 in the afternoon and explained that he was “stuck” in a nearby town, that he had been there for a couple days, and that he was unable to get to the office because he did not have a ride to the probation office. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Fortier
green
2 sentences2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th 2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. England
green
2 sentences2024At the subsequent probation revocation hearing, the trial court Cite as 334 Or App 545 (2024) 547 continued defendant’s probation in two of the cases. 2024At the subsequent probation revocation hearing, the trial court Cite as 334 Or App 545 (2024) 547 continued defendant’s probation in two of the cases. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2021Morrissey v. Brewer, 1 Defendant was also charged with a probation violation for failing to report to his probation officer, which he conceded to the trial court. 580 State v. Martin 408 US 471, 480 , 92 S Ct 2593 , 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972).2 Rather, the probation revocation process is “flexible enough to consider evidence * * * that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” Id. 2021Morrissey v. Brewer, 1 Defendant was also charged with a probation violation for failing to report to his probation officer, which he conceded to the trial court. 580 State v. Martin 408 US 471, 480 , 92 S Ct 2593 , 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972).2 Rather, the probation revocation process is “flexible enough to consider evidence * * * that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” Id. | 2 | 2008–2021 |
State v. Ice
green
2 sentences2010And on the fourth conviction, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of 16 months, to be served consecutively to the term imposed on the third conviction. 1 In sum, the court imposed a total period of incarceration of 48 months. *388 At the probation revocation hearing, defendant argued that, although he had waived a jury when he pleaded guilty to the charges and had stipulated to the violations, under State v. Ice, 343 Or 248 , 170 P3d 1049 (2007), 2 the court could not impose consecutive revocation sanctions because factual findings in support of such sanctions were required by ORS 137.123 2010And on the fourth conviction, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of 16 months, to be served consecutively to the term imposed on the third conviction. 1 In sum, the court imposed a total period of incarceration of 48 months. *388 At the probation revocation hearing, defendant argued that, although he had waived a jury when he pleaded guilty to the charges and had stipulated to the violations, under State v. Ice, 343 Or 248 , 170 P3d 1049 (2007), 2 the court could not impose consecutive revocation sanctions because factual findings in support of such sanctions were required by ORS 137.123 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Mempa v. Rhay
green
2 sentences1982Consistent with Gideon, the Supreme Court has held that the defendant has a right to counsel at sentencing on a guilty plea, Townsend v. Burke, 334 US 736 , 68 S Ct 1252 , 92 L Ed 1690 (1948); at a probation revocation hearing, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 US 128 , 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 (1967); at an arraignment, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 US 52 , 82 S Ct 157 , 7 L Ed 2d 114 (1961); at a preliminary hearing, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US 1 , 90 S Ct 1999 , 26 L Ed 2d 387 (1970), and at a lineup, US v. Wade, 388 US 218, 230-231 , 87 S Ct 1926 , 18 L Ed 2d 114 (1967). 1982Consistent with Gideon, the Supreme Court has held that the defendant has a right to counsel at sentencing on a guilty plea, Townsend v. Burke, 334 US 736 , 68 S Ct 1252 , 92 L Ed 1690 (1948); at a probation revocation hearing, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 US 128 , 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 (1967); at an arraignment, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 US 52 , 82 S Ct 157 , 7 L Ed 2d 114 (1961); at a preliminary hearing, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US 1 , 90 S Ct 1999 , 26 L Ed 2d 387 (1970), and at a lineup, US v. Wade, 388 US 218, 230-231 , 87 S Ct 1926 , 18 L Ed 2d 114 (1967). | 2 | 1971–1982 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2025Rogers, 314 Or at 120 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Balfour
green
2 sentences2024Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434 , 814 P2d 1069 (1991). 2024Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434 , 814 P2d 1069 (1991). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Segal v. United States
green
1 sentence2022Held: The court agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s reason- ing in United States v. Segal, 549 F2d 1293 (9th Cir), cert den, 431 US 919 (1977), that federal due process does not require a formal colloquy to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to contest a violation allegation in the context of a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Harris
neutral
2 sentences2021State v. Harris, 260 Or App 154, 157 , 316 P3d 405 (2013). 2021State v. Harris, 260 Or App 154, 157 , 316 P3d 405 (2013). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2021State v. Patterson, 269 Or App 226, 236 , 344 P3d 497 (2015). 2021State v. Patterson, 269 Or App 226, 236 , 344 P3d 497 (2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re the Marriage of Olson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Kissell green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Clay v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Martinez neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State Ex Rel. Penn v. Norblad green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Wilcox green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State of Oregon v. Dewey green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Reuter green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Waxwing Cedar Products, Ltd. v. Koennecke green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. George green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Bahler v. Fletcher green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State Ex Rel. Dillavou v. Foster green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State Ex Rel. Vandenberg v. Vandenberg green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State Ex Rel. Ott v. Cushing green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Mason green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Townsend v. Burke green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Shepard v. Bowe green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Hamilton v. Alabama green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| United States v. Wade green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.
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.