host factors in Oregon

2026In Roble-Baker, we explained that, in determining whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers took place in compelling circumstances, “this court has consid- ered a host of factors.” 340 Or at 640 .

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2006In deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility “in surroundings relatively familiar to defendant”); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because “[t]he stop as a whole, and the questions, were brief’); (3) the amount of

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2017The Supreme Court has set out a number of factors that a court may consider when determining whether circumstances were compelling: “in deciding whether a defendant’s encounter with police officers has so evolved, this court has considered a host of factors, including: (1) the location of the encounter, Smith, 310 Or at 7 (concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in .part, because detective met with defendant in noncustodial facility fin surroundings relatively familiar to defendant’); (2) the length of the encounter, State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495 , 930 P2d 221 (1997) (concludin

2015“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors *** including] the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 US at 684 .

1997These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id.

2026Those factors include “(1) the length of the encounter, (2) the location of the encoun- ter, (3) the defendant’s ability to terminate the encounter, and (4) the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant.” Reed, 371 Or at 487 (citing Roble-Baker, 340 Or at 640-41 ).