State v. Crotsley

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 two offenses were separate statutory provisions because they addressed separate and distinct legislative concerns
• concluding that the court did not err in refusing to merge convictions for third-degree rape and first-degree rape or convictions for third-degree sodomy and first-degree sodomy
• explaining that ORS 161.067 and former ORS 161.062 (1997) “derived from a common source”—Senate Bill (SB) 257 (1985)
• identifying those three questions as the appropriate analysis for determining the validity of separate convictions under the anti-merger statute
• identifying those three questions as the appropriate analysis for determining the validity of separate convictions under the anti-merger statute
• interpreting former ORS 161.062(1) (1989), repealed by Or Laws 1999, ch 136, § 1, which contained the same language that now appears in ORS 161.067

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).