State v. Belle

How courts have described this case

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

• “Once the trial court found as fact that defendant’s confession was induced by [the detective’s] statements, then it necessarily follows as a matter of law that the confession could not be admitted under ORS 136.425.”
• “Once the trial court found as fact that [the] defendant’s confession was induced by [the detective’s] statements, then 10 Not to unduly belabor the point, but the consequence of making the exis- tence of actual authority to carry out a threat dispositive under ORS 136.425(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Pryor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-02-03· cited 8×
• State v. Hogeland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-04-26· cited 7×
• State v. Simmons
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-02-05· cited 5×
• State v. Monaco
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-12-11· cited 3×
• State v. Center
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-09-29· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Walker
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2011-07-28· cited 171×
• State v. Mendacino
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-12-18· cited 62×
• State v. Wintzingerode
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1881-01-15· cited 56×
• State v. Powell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2012-07-19· cited 21×
• State v. Aguilar
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-03-08· cited 9×
• State v. Moats
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-08-08· cited 4×