Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2020 0 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. Cookgreen1 sentence2015State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 622-23 , 853 P2d 256 (1991); Cook, 340 Or at 540 (“Although the United States Supreme Court no longer adheres to the Roberts test * * * we continue to use it to analyze Confrontation Clause claims under Article I, section 11 * * *.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moengreen1 sentence1992See State v. Moen, supra, 309 Or at 62-63 (no independent inquiry into reliability of hearsay statements is required to satisfy Oregon’s constitutional confrontation clause if hearsay statements fall within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crawleygreen2 sentences1990See State v. Crawley, supra, 242 Or. at 604-05 , 410 P.2d 1012 (witness deceased); State v. Meyers, supra, 59 Or. at 541-42 , 117 P. 818 (witness outside of jurisdiction). 1990See State v. Crawley, supra, 242 Or. at 604-05 , 410 P.2d 1012 (witness deceased); State v. Meyers, supra, 59 Or. at 541-42 , 117 P. 818 (witness outside of jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Meyersgreen2 sentences1990See State v. Crawley, supra, 242 Or. at 604-05 , 410 P.2d 1012 (witness deceased); State v. Meyers, supra, 59 Or. at 541-42 , 117 P. 818 (witness outside of jurisdiction). 1990See State v. Crawley, supra, 242 Or. at 604-05 , 410 P.2d 1012 (witness deceased); State v. Meyers, supra, 59 Or. at 541-42 , 117 P. 818 (witness outside of jurisdiction). | 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. Copeland
green
2 sentences2020Nonetheless, Copeland does say that the Birchfield holding (that the criminalist’s report should have been excluded) is consistent with the principles that animate the state confrontation clause because the criminalist’s report “contained investigative facts and opinions involving suspected criminal activity.” Id. at 826 . 2017Rather, her trial counsel was careful to specify the particular statement in the report to which defendant objected—namely, the statement that defendant “[was] given a copy of this form ** * as written notice.” Cf. State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (explaining that, when a party unsuccessfully objects to evidence as a whole without segregating inadmissible parts of the evidence from admissible parts, the trial court’s ruling will be sustained if any part of the evidence is admissible). 6 Perhaps because of State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816 , 306 P3d 610 (2013), defendant does not arg | 2 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017Rather, her trial counsel was careful to specify the particular statement in the report to which defendant objected—namely, the statement that defendant “[was] given a copy of this form ** * as written notice.” Cf. State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (explaining that, when a party unsuccessfully objects to evidence as a whole without segregating inadmissible parts of the evidence from admissible parts, the trial court’s ruling will be sustained if any part of the evidence is admissible). 6 Perhaps because of State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816 , 306 P3d 610 (2013), defendant does not arg 2017Rather, her trial counsel was careful to specify the particular statement in the report to which defendant objected—namely, the statement that defendant “[was] given a copy of this form ** * as written notice.” Cf. State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (explaining that, when a party unsuccessfully objects to evidence as a whole without segregating inadmissible parts of the evidence from admissible parts, the trial court’s ruling will be sustained if any part of the evidence is admissible). 6 Perhaps because of State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816 , 306 P3d 610 (2013), defendant does not arg | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2015State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 622-23 , 853 P2d 256 (1991); Cook, 340 Or at 540 (“Although the United States Supreme Court no longer adheres to the Roberts test * * * we continue to use it to analyze Confrontation Clause claims under Article I, section 11 * * *.”). 2015State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 622-23 , 853 P2d 256 (1991); Cook, 340 Or at 540 (“Although the United States Supreme Court no longer adheres to the Roberts test * * * we continue to use it to analyze Confrontation Clause claims under Article I, section 11 * * *.”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2015To determine whether the admission of out-of-court statements of an absent declarant violates a defendant’s state confrontation clause rights, we apply the two-part test announced and applied in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56, 65-66 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). 2015To determine whether the admission of out-of-court statements of an absent declarant violates a defendant’s state confrontation clause rights, we apply the two-part test announced and applied in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56, 65-66 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Cornell
green
2 sentences1993“A number of commentators, including Wigmore, have analogized the inculpatory confession to a statement which has both self-serving and disserving aspects * * * and have concluded that the rationale for the exception for statements against [penal] interest is lacking for that part of the declarant’s statements inculpating an accomplice.” 4 Weinstein and Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 804-152, ¶ 804(b)(3)[03] (1992). 17 In State v. Cornell, 314 Or 673, 684 , 842 P2d 394 (1992), this court held that, “[ajlthough the hearsay exception for coconspirator statements has existed in different forms, * * 1993“A number of commentators, including Wigmore, have analogized the inculpatory confession to a statement which has both self-serving and disserving aspects * * * and have concluded that the rationale for the exception for statements against [penal] interest is lacking for that part of the declarant’s statements inculpating an accomplice.” 4 Weinstein and Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 804-152, ¶ 804(b)(3)[03] (1992). 17 In State v. Cornell, 314 Or 673, 684 , 842 P2d 394 (1992), this court held that, “[ajlthough the hearsay exception for coconspirator statements has existed in different forms, * * | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.