Oregon Supreme Court· 7/30/2009

State v. Bailey

Citations

213 P.3d 1240
346 Or. 551
2009 Ore. LEXIS 47

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the word “unlawfully” in ORS 162.285(1)(a) “conveys the legislature’s intention not to criminalize attempts to induce a person to exercise a lawful right or privilege not to testify”
noting that it would be inappropriate to draw an inference that a defendant committed witness tampering from evidence of an inducement to do something lawful
holding that when “ORS 162.285(1)(a) defines witness tampering in terms of tampering with a person who the defendant ‘believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding,’ it includes tampering that occurs at a time when no official proceeding is pending”
interpreting ORS 162.285(D). 1 The Bailey court concluded that its statute does not require that an official proceeding be pending at the time “tampering” conduct occurs. This is because, for purposes of subsection (a
“Generally, when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute and omits the provision from another related statute, we assume that the omission was deliberate.”
when the legislature includes an express requirement in one statute but omits it from another, it may be inferred that the omission is deliberate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gillette

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.