State v. Patrick

2 Citing cases

  1. State of Oregon v. Risen

    192 Or. 557 (Or. 1951)   Cited 19 times
    Reasoning that “mere words” were not sufficient to establish resistance; rather, resistance “must be reasonably proportionate to [the victim's] strength and * * * opportunities”

    This incident "kind of perturbed him a little" and flustered him. Thereafter, he claimed, they had intercourse on two or three occasions in the girls' bedroom. In State v. Patrick, 131 Or. 209, 218, 282 P. 233, the district attorney, in argument to the jury, sharply criticized the defendant and likened him to a wrecker and defiler of character. This court held that no error was committed thereby; that the district attorney's argument had some foundation in the evidence; and that we could not say that it went beyond the bounds of legitimate argument.

  2. State v. Nortin

    170 Or. 296 (Or. 1943)   Cited 25 times

    )) See also State v. Deal (supra); State v. Patrick, 131 Or. 209, 282 P. 233 (1929); Ritchie v. Pittman, 144 Or. 228, 24 P.2d 328 (1933). In fact, there is reason and authority supporting the views of Professor Wigmore to the effect that the sufficiency of the foundation for impeachment should be a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.