seven-factor test in Oregon

2021Id. at 370-71 .

2019Miller, 6 Or App at 369-70 ; see also United States v. McKeever, 169 F Supp 426, 430 (SD NY 1958), rev’d on other grounds, 271 F2d 669 (2d Cir 1959) (listing the same requirements).

2024Defendant does not seek review of the unpreserved error as plain, and we will ordinarily not undertake that analysis “unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.” State v. McIntire, 328 Or App 328, 335 , 537 P3d 608 (2023), rev den, 327 Or 26 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Defendant does not seek review of the unpreserved error as plain, and we will ordinarily not undertake that analysis “unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.” State v. McIntire, 328 Or App 328, 335 , 537 P3d 608 (2023), rev den, 327 Or 26 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024ORAP 5.45(1) (“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court[.]”); State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 123 , 970 P2d 215 (1998) (holding that even though the defendant made a “gen- eral reference to the seven-factor test for admissibility of scientific evidence,” his argument was unpreserved because he did not raise an issue “regarding the admissibility of [the expert’s] testimony as scientific evidence”).

2024ORAP 5.45(1) (“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court[.]”); State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 123 , 970 P2d 215 (1998) (holding that even though the defendant made a “gen- eral reference to the seven-factor test for admissibility of scientific evidence,” his argument was unpreserved because he did not raise an issue “regarding the admissibility of [the expert’s] testimony as scientific evidence”).

2022The text of Section 33 In considering whether a statutory scheme was so punitive as to trans- form a civil remedy into a criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes, the Court used a seven factor test: “(1) [w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punish- ment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deter- rence; (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternat

2022The text of Section 33 In considering whether a statutory scheme was so punitive as to trans- form a civil remedy into a criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes, the Court used a seven factor test: “(1) [w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punish- ment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deter- rence; (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternat

2019As we recently explained in State v. Noorzai, 292 Or App 248, 253-54 , 423 P3d 742 (2018), opinion vac’d, appeal dismissed, 293 Or App 432 , 423 P3d 817 (2018),1 Miller looked to the seven-factor test but actually was part of a line of cases representing a “more flexible” approach to authentication: “Historically, a party seeking to establish the authentic- ity of an audio recording was required to make a litany of showings, including that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; that the operator of the device was com- petent; that no changes, additions, or deletions were made; a

2019As we recently explained in State v. Noorzai, 292 Or App 248, 253-54 , 423 P3d 742 (2018), opinion vac’d, appeal dismissed, 293 Or App 432 , 423 P3d 817 (2018),1 Miller looked to the seven-factor test but actually was part of a line of cases representing a “more flexible” approach to authentication: “Historically, a party seeking to establish the authentic- ity of an audio recording was required to make a litany of showings, including that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; that the operator of the device was com- petent; that no changes, additions, or deletions were made; a

2019As we recently explained in State v. Noorzai, 292 Or App 248, 253-54 , 423 P3d 742 (2018), opinion vac’d, appeal dismissed, 293 Or App 432 , 423 P3d 817 (2018),1 Miller looked to the seven-factor test but actually was part of a line of cases representing a “more flexible” approach to authentication: “Historically, a party seeking to establish the authentic- ity of an audio recording was required to make a litany of showings, including that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; that the operator of the device was com- petent; that no changes, additions, or deletions were made; a

2019As we recently explained in State v. Noorzai, 292 Or App 248, 253-54 , 423 P3d 742 (2018), opinion vac’d, appeal dismissed, 293 Or App 432 , 423 P3d 817 (2018),1 Miller looked to the seven-factor test but actually was part of a line of cases representing a “more flexible” approach to authentication: “Historically, a party seeking to establish the authentic- ity of an audio recording was required to make a litany of showings, including that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; that the operator of the device was com- petent; that no changes, additions, or deletions were made; a

1996We addressed that issue in First Interstate Bank v. Clark, 133 Or App 712 , 894 P2d 499 , rev den 321 Or 429 (1995).

1996We addressed that issue in First Interstate Bank v. Clark, 133 Or App 712 , 894 P2d 499 , rev den 321 Or 429 (1995).

1994Relying on the seven-factor analysis developed in Jordan v. Western Electric, 1 Or App 441, 443-44 , 463 P2d 598 (1970), 1 the Board found claimant’s injury to be in the course and scope of employment.

1994Relying on the seven-factor analysis developed in Jordan v. Western Electric, 1 Or App 441, 443-44 , 463 P2d 598 (1970), 1 the Board found claimant’s injury to be in the course and scope of employment.