State v. Johnson

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Cureno

    324 Or. App. 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    There is thus little, if any, likelihood that excluding defendant's prior sanctions for failure to report to his probation officer would have affected the trial court's decision to revoke probation and impose the stipulated 48-month sentence. See, e.g., Dowty, 299 Or.App. at 777 ("In short, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's failure to comply with his treatment rules-without considering defendant's inculpatory statements-and there is little likelihood that suppression of those statements would have assisted defendant."); State v. Johnson, 300 Or.App. 212, 214, 452 P.3d 1080 (2019) (where the court found that in light of other strong evidence, there was "little likelihood that the erroneously admitted evidence affected the court's contempt determination or its probation-violation determination.").