Opinion
December 17, 1985.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Oregon Supreme Court
Dec 17, 1985
300 Or. 451 (Or. 1985)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Oregon Supreme Court
Dec 17, 1985
300 Or. 451 (Or. 1985)
addressing the scope of rebuttal evidence
Summary of this case from State v. Conereasoning that, where "[d]efense counsel's cross-examination raised the issue of * * * veracity," the trial court did not err in later denying defendant's motion to strike certain testimony asserted to be vouching, because " ‘[h]aving opened the door, defendant cannot be heard to complain because the prosecution stepped through.’ "
Summary of this case from State v. Conenoting that the use of overhead lights for safety reasons does not necessarily transform an encounter into a stop because " more significant restraint is required"
Summary of this case from State v. Scatchardadmitting testimony regarding typical behavior of sex abuse victims, including, inter alia, acting out sexually with others
Summary of this case from State v. RemmeCase details for
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Dec 17, 1985
Citations
300 Or. 451 (Or. 1985)
Citing Cases
State v. Hedgpeth
290 Or. App. at 409, 415 P.3d at 1085 (Powers, J., dissenting). That proposition has long been recognized, at…
State v. ConeIn that light, it is at least plausible that defendant made a strategic choice not to object to Strawn's…