Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2/25/2004

State v. Crain

Citations

84 P.3d 1092
192 Or. App. 328
2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 201

How courts have described this case

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

observing that a “request for substitute counsel must be affirmatively presented” and that the court has “no duty to inquire sua sponte into the matter”
observing that a “request for substitute counsel must be affirmatively presented” and that the court has “no duty to inquire sua sponte into the matter”
“[W]hen presented with a defendant’s request for substitution of court-appointed counsel, a trial court must assess the facts and determine whether the defendant’s complaint provides a legitimate ground for such a substitution.”
“[W]hen presented with a defendant’s request for substitution of court-appointed counsel, a trial court must assess the facts and determine whether the defendant’s complaint provides a legitimate ground for such a substitution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.