Loading…
Opinion
341 Or. 141 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2006
Full text
State v. Ness
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 2016
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015
Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 2015
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2014
Parentheticals
holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without the benefit of Miranda warnings was not harmless error because the state relied on the statements during closing argument
holding that, in a bench trial, an MJOA is not necessary to preserve a claim of error concerning the legal sufficiency of the state’s evidence “as long as a defendant clearly raises the issue in closing argument”
applying the version of ORS 137.717 that was in effect at the time of the defendant’s offenses
distinguishing Warner and holding that hospital setting was compelling, in part, because the police officer told the defendant that he could be arrested for refusing to cooperate with questioning
whether an officer subjectively believed that he had probable cause for an arrest is a question of fact
if officer lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, the officer's threat was unlawful, and the defendant's consent was involuntary
if officer lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, the officer’s threat was unlawful, and the defendant’s consent was involuntary
a defendant can preserve a claim that the evidence is legally insufficient for conviction by raising that argument to the trial court without a motion for a judgment of acquittal
“[w]e do not read statutes in isolation” but, instead, consider them in context
“Although certainly the best way to accomplish [preserva- tion] is to move for a judgment of acquittal, such a motion is not necessary as long as a defendant clearly raises the issue in closing argument.”
