6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Albert Lucero v. Kim Hollandgreen2 sentences2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). 2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Smallsgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., U.S. v. Smalls, 605 F3d 765 , 768 n 2 (10th Cir 2010) (“the Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements”; citing representative federal cases). 17 In making this argument, defendant relies on aspects of the record from trial, rather than the motion for severance, which, as discussed, is not part of a trial court’s consideration when ruling on a motion for severance. 2016See, e.g., U.S. v. Smalls, 605 F3d 765 , 768 n 2 (10th Cir 2010) (“the Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements”; citing representative federal cases). 17 In making this argument, defendant relies on aspects of the record from trial, rather than the motion for severance, which, as discussed, is not part of a trial court’s consideration when ruling on a motion for severance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Marsh
green
2 sentences2025“For the Bruton rule to apply, the nontestify- ing codefendant’s out-of-court statement must ‘on its face’ incriminate the other defendant.” Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or at 390 -91 (quoting Richardson, 481 US at 208-09 ). 2025“For the Bruton rule to apply, the nontestify- ing codefendant’s out-of-court statement must ‘on its face’ incriminate the other defendant.” Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or at 390 -91 (quoting Richardson, 481 US at 208-09 ). | 4 | 1990–2025 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). 2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). | 3 | 2016–2025 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2025To be sure, we have previously noted that, because Oregon appellate courts “have treated Article I, section 11, and the Sixth Amendment as coextensive with respect to an accused’s right to confront witnesses,” “the guarantee in Article I, section 11, offers at least as much protection as the guarantee in the Sixth Amendment” pertaining to the admissibility of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession. 656 State v. Hughes State v. Johnson, 199 Or App 305 , 309 n 1, 111 P3d 784 , rev den, 339 Or 701 (2005). 2025To be sure, we have previously noted that, because Oregon appellate courts “have treated Article I, section 11, and the Sixth Amendment as coextensive with respect to an accused’s right to confront witnesses,” “the guarantee in Article I, section 11, offers at least as much protection as the guarantee in the Sixth Amendment” pertaining to the admissibility of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession. 656 State v. Hughes State v. Johnson, 199 Or App 305 , 309 n 1, 111 P3d 784 , rev den, 339 Or 701 (2005). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). 2025At the motion hear- ing, defense counsel asserted that he was asking for sev- erance “primarily on the Bruton issue,” never mentioned Article I, section 11, and only cited case law applying the Sixth Amendment, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980)), and Lucero v. Holland, 902 F3d 979, 988 (9th Cir 2018) (holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Turnidge
green
2 sentences2025“For the Bruton rule to apply, the nontestify- ing codefendant’s out-of-court statement must ‘on its face’ incriminate the other defendant.” Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or at 390 -91 (quoting Richardson, 481 US at 208-09 ). 2025“For the Bruton rule to apply, the nontestify- ing codefendant’s out-of-court statement must ‘on its face’ incriminate the other defendant.” Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or at 390 -91 (quoting Richardson, 481 US at 208-09 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Harrington v. California
red
2 sentences2020Harrington v. California, 395 US 250, 254 , 89 S Ct 1726 , 23 L Ed 2d 284 (1969). 2020Harrington v. California, 395 US 250, 254 , 89 S Ct 1726 , 23 L Ed 2d 284 (1969). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Flores Ramos
green
1 sentence2020Nonetheless, even though the premise of the Bruton line of cases is that certain evidence put before the jury may be so powerful that the jury cannot ignore it even if instructed to do so, the Court nevertheless has held that Bruton error is subject to harmlessness analysis and may be held harmless based on other evidence admitted at Cite as 367 Or 292 (2020) 303 trial. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences2016In any event, we reject defendant’s argument for the reasons explained in the text below. 18 Defendant also argues that the trial court’s failure to sever his trial from Bruce’s trial violated his fair trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 US 400 , 85 S Ct 1065 , 13 L Ed 2d 923 (1965). 2016In any event, we reject defendant’s argument for the reasons explained in the text below. 18 Defendant also argues that the trial court’s failure to sever his trial from Bruce’s trial violated his fair trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 US 400 , 85 S Ct 1065 , 13 L Ed 2d 923 (1965). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Joslin
green
2 sentences2016State v. Joslin, 332 Or 373, 380 , 29 P3d 1112 (2001). 20 By the time that Troncosco and Duvall asked defendant about owning a computer, law enforcement knew that the TracFones had been remotely activated over the internet. 21 Defendant makes two additional arguments on direct review that we decline to consider. 2016State v. Joslin, 332 Or 373, 380 , 29 P3d 1112 (2001). 20 By the time that Troncosco and Duvall asked defendant about owning a computer, law enforcement knew that the TracFones had been remotely activated over the internet. 21 Defendant makes two additional arguments on direct review that we decline to consider. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gray v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 195-96 . 2007Id. at 195-96 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.