Oregon Supreme Court· 11/8/2018

State v. Bement

Citations

429 P.3d 715
363 Or. 760

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that it was error to exclude evidence of the complainant’s state of mind, where it suggested a motive to attack the defendant and thereby corroborated the defendant’s claim of self-defense
stating that “a court may address that risk of misuse through a limiting instruction to the jury”
explaining that the erroneous exclusion of emails was not harmless because “we cannot say that those additional facts and inferences were unlikely to influence the jury’s verdict”
explaining that the erroneous exclusion of emails was not harmless because “we cannot say that those additional facts and inferences were unlikely to influence the jury’s verdict”
observing that an “evidentiary error is more likely to influence a verdict if the error relates to a central factual issue” in a case (internal citations omitted)
observing that an “evidentiary error is more likely to influence a verdict if the error relates to a central factual issue” in a case (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.