concluding that, for purposes of establishing whether corroboration was required to substantiate a witness's testimony, the witness did not aid and abet the burglary or theft because there was no evidence that the witness "planned or participated" in those crimes and because the crimes "were completed" by the time the witness got involved
Summary of this case from State v. WilsonDecember 28, 1989.
concluding that, for purposes of establishing whether corroboration was required to substantiate a witness's testimony, the witness did not aid and abet the burglary or theft because there was no evidence that the witness "planned or participated" in those crimes and because the crimes "were completed" by the time the witness got involved
Summary of this case from State v. Wilsonopening Tylenol bottle or cigarette box is not reasonable in relation to the purpose of a booking inventory policy
Summary of this case from Weber v. Oakridge S.D. 76Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Dec 28, 1989
" 149 Or. App. at 297. The state argues that our holding in Ridderbush is not dispositive, relying on State…
State v. ClelandWe repeatedly have explained that a "requirement that officers open every closed container that is designed…